The case for MIHOP

[LunaC]

George W. Bush constantly reminds the nation about the threat of terrorism that began with 911 but he leaves out a few important details that you should know.........

In June 1997, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was born. Populated by influential Movers of industry and Shakers of public opinion, the PNAC is an organization united in the vision for a global U.S. empire - "Pax Americana" - through coercion and military domination. Their philosophy can be simply summarized:

• There are countries to plunder and fortunes to be made. You have it, we want it. Do as we say or suffer the consequences.


• The U.S. already has a powerful military but we plan to nurture and grow it until it's massive and we are indominable. Resistance is futile. We are.......

Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, William J. Bennett, Frank Gaffney, and I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, signator's - among others - of the PNAC's "Statement of Principles".

"We need to...challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values."

"We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future."

"It is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm


JANUARY 1998 - The PNAC knew that he who owns the oil also owns the world so they sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power since he put "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil at hazard". Clinton didn't grant them their wish and the PNAC was disheartened that they couldn't manipulate the military while outside of the White House power structure.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm


MARCH - APRIL 1999 - In an effort to capture and control the castle and all its warriors and weapons, the PNAC offered up members Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle and Gary Bauer to run as Republican candidates in the upcoming Presidential election.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/profile.htm


JUNE 1999 - Ever persistent and determined to maximize their potential for success in the Presidential campaign, the PNAC exercised their power of nepotism and member-Jeb Bush's brother George stepped up to the plate to join the race.


SPRING 2000 - The PNAC may have felt confident with their candidate's chances for winning the White House but they were absolutely smug over what they saw as a possible Fallback Plan...electronic voting machines with severe security flaws that included hidden backdoors, erasable audit trails and multiple vote totals with the potential to propel vote tampering to new heights through the magic of remote access.

How To Rig An Election In The United States
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

Can the votes be changed?
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold.htm

Bettter yet, Chuck Hagel - a fellow Republican loyalist - owned the ES&S voting machine company that counted 60% of all U.S. votes. He had already won one election and was part of the U.S. Senate power team in Washington.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0301/S00166.htm

Assured that the White House would soon be theirs, the PNAC debuted their 76-page blueprint to achieve world domination. "Rebuilding America's Defenses" became the PNAC's manifesto, detailing the ideal level of military power to specifically eliminate the hostile regimes of Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea and it endorsed pre-emptive strikes against them, tradition be damned. Iraq was given star billing as Control Central for their Mideast base of operations.

At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible."

"American landpower is the essential link in the chain that translates U.S. military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence.

"We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership."

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

What is particularly foreboding and chilling in view of events to later unfold, is this statement bemoaning the lengthy process of rebuilding the existing U.S. military according to the heightened standards and specifications the PNAC aspired to.

...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm


NOVEMBER 2000 - Saddam may have sensed an ill wind in the air when he made the first strike, turned his back on the U.S. Dollar and accepted only Euros as payment for his oil. This had the potential of seriously destabilizing the U.S. economy and the PNAC considered this an hostile act of aggression towards their personal and business interests. The heat was on for them to make their first move.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp


DECEMBER 2000 - In a highly contentious Presidential vote battle on the home turf of PNAC-Jeb Bush, the Supreme Court decided that George Bush was the new President.

How George W. Bush Won the 2004 Presidential Election
http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html

Bush now had the green light to seamlessly merge members of the PNAC into his Administration with no one the wiser. PNAC members elevated to the Bush hierarchy include, among others:

• Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense


• Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense


• Elliott Abrams - Member of the National Security Council


• John Bolton - Undersecretary for Arms Control and InternationalSecurity


• Richard Perle - Chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board


• Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State


• John Bolton - Undersecretary of State for Disarmament


• Zalmay Khalilzad - White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition

An Honorable Mention was awarded to Condoleezza Rice - National Security Advisor - who is a former oil-company consultant having been on the board of directors of Chevron as its main expert on Kazakhstan.

The PNAC agenda had now passed "Go". The most powerful military machine in the world stood at their ready and Saddam was in the crosshair.

"It is important to shape circumstances...... ." - PNAC Statement of Principles

In May 2001 the U.S. State Department met with Iran, German and Italian officials to discuss Afghanistan. It was decided that the ruling Taliban would be toppled and a "broad-based government" would control the country so a gas pipeline could be built there.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7969.pdf.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex20867.htm

Even as plans were being made to remove the Taliban rulers from power, Colin Powell announced a $43 million "gift" to Afghanistan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-091701scheer.column
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html

Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in the UAE received a call that Bin Laden supporters were in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives. It was rumored that Bin Laden was interested in hijacking U.S. aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

In June 2001 the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense was changed. NORAD’s military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary and PNAC-member, Donald Rumsfeld.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf


In July 2001, the private plot formulated in May for toppling the Taliban was divulged during the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Immediately after the conference, American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials secretly met in Berlin to finalize the strategy for military strikes against the Taliban, scheduled to begin before mid-October 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex20867.htm


In September 2001 the "catastrophic and catalyzing" modern-day Pearl Harbor envisioned years earlier by the PNAC came to pass when the WTC and Pentagon were attacked as Rumsfeld sat passive and unresponsive. The finger of blame was pointed at Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative with ties to Afghanistan. Suddenly, the U.S. "gift" of $43 million to the Taliban in May was cast in a new light. Coincidentally, Pakistan had participated in the plan to attack Afghanistan and the chief of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) agency was later linked to a 911 hijacker after wiring him $100,00 just days before the WTC fell. Pakistan's ISI also had a long-standing working relationship with the CIA.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8830
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=1454238160
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1266317,00.html

The PNAC had scored a home run with the bases loaded with the 911 event: shock, horror and fear gripped the nation, the war on "terrorism" had been established in no uncertain terms, attacking Afghanistan with public approval was a foregone conclusion and the stage was set for building a public case against Saddam.

Not one to let a good attack go to waste, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sprung into action.

• He told his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq, even though Saddam wasn't linked to the attacks.


• PNAC-James Woolsey, former CIA director, was dispatched to London to look for and 'firm up' evidence of Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks.


• PNAC-member and Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was authorized to create the Office of Special Plans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

"It is important to shape circumstances..........."- PNAC Statement of Principles

The Office of Special Plans (OSP) was a secret group of analysts and policy advisors with no status in the intelligence community. Nevertheless they reported directly to the White House and National Security office with cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources to support the case for invading Iraq. The OSP circumvented formal, well-established oversight procedures, ignored intelligence that didn't further their agenda, expanded the intelligence on weapons beyond what was justified and over-emphasized the national security risk. They became more influential than the C.I.A. or the Defense Intelligence Agency who didn't even know the ultra-secret OSP existed for at least a year.

Because they were based in the Pentagon, it was assumed that the OSP was an intelligence-gathering agency that was second-guessing the C.I.A. but in actuality it was the White House Military Marketing Machine charged with the task of writing the PNAC's "Get Saddam" sales pitch for the public. Shading and bending reality to suit their own purpose, it wasn't important for the OSP's stories about Saddam to be factual, only that the average American believed them to be - in true Hollywood fashion.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact

While the nation was stripped to the emotional bone and painfully vulnerable, the White House capitalized on the opportunity to reshape public perceptions and responses to conform with the PNAC's new American agenda. Rather than buoy the "can do" American spirit with optimism and hope for the future as Presidents before him had done in times of crisis, Bush spoke with an alarmist and pessimistic tone that served to perpetuate the high anxiety, excitability and fear in the populace.

To hear him speak, the world was a dark, evil and dangerous place....terrorism was here to stay....it would be a long struggle....America was helpless without the military might of the Government to keep the nation safe. The intent was to create a psychologically broken, weary and docile populace that would be easier to lead into war.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130534_focusecond13.html

Fear became the Administration's strategic tactic for reprogramming the public into accepting the PNAC's militaristic designs. Still shell-shocked and exhausted from the enormity of the WTC and Pentagon tragedies, the public's panic shifted into frenzied over-drive when anthrax-laced envelopes arrived in government and media offices, killing five people. A perpetrator was never identified but the investigation eventually centered around the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, one of the nation's main anthrax research centers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126244,00.html

Using classic "operant learning" techniques from the realm of consumer psychology, the public was purposely kept on High Alert and continually "shaped" with ominous sound bites on the nightly news and "Level Orange Terror Alerts" at regularly scheduled but discrete intervals.

http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/#Perception


In October 2001, with flags waving, crowds cheering, and anthems playing, the "War On Terror" and the hunt for Osama began when Afghanistan was attacked right on schedule of July's secret meeting

Immediately afterwards the PNAC and White House collaboration of "GET SADDAM" played relentlessly on televisions and in newspapers across the nation and the World as the "War on Terror" waged on and the litany of lies began.


The only terrorists we have to fear are those that occupy the White House.



This has been a presentation of The Whispering Campaign - an opportunity to become ACTIVELY involved in educating the American public without drawing attention to yourself. This is a game of Political "Gossip" where the story of our Government's deception and betrayal gets passed from one villager to another. Anyone can play. The rules are simple: make ten copies of this timeline and leave it in a public place where someone else will find it and read it. Ideal locations for maximum exposure include book stores, copy shops, libraries and train stations. Buses, taxis, laundromats, and check-out lines at the grocery store. Hair salons, rest rooms, gas stations and convenience stores. Anywhere you happen to be will work just fine. The American public deserves to know the TRUTH!

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[yinkaafrica]

2. No doubt, they MIHOP

[peacetalksforall]

3. Outstanding! A fine work of research and writing!

This past week, a poster was insisting that DU should do more.

I think this could/should go into a static file on DU for reference, referrals, and links when anyone asks something as simple as what is PNAC, what is MIHOP, how can I learn more, or any kind of when-where- why-what question. It's value is its chronological build-up and the capability to allow someone to 'see' what went down. It is also valuable for the leads to learning.

Excellent! Thanks!

[JohnyCanuck]

5. I agree

Bookmarking this thread for sure. Thanks LunaC


“You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

The Pentagon's "NATO option"

[LunaC]

6. Thank YOU!

I busted my butt on this piece and it's rewarding to know that my efforts are appreciated.

[leftofthedial]

4. definitely MIHOP

It not only makes sense, it is far more coherent and plausible than the cover story

[Spazito]

7. Wow! Excellent work!!

Have bookmarked this, thanks for this very important thread!

Edited to add: Thanks, LunaC, for posting this in the new PNAC Group! It is invaluable!

[LunaC]

9. The new PNAC group

For those who may have missed its announcement, the PNAC and Neocon Agenda Group can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=307

[OneMoreDemocrat]

8. A whole lot of conjecture and zero proof of MIHOP.........

I wonder who Richard Clarke thinks was behind 9/11, Osama bin Laden or the PNAC.

Somehow I'd imagine it would be the former and not the latter, of course, he could have been left out of the loop I guess; unless he's in on it.

The most interesting thing about the whole MIHOP on DU is that the same people who are die-hard believers of something that cannot be proven but must be taken on faith and wishful thinking, are the same ones who make fun of Christians the loudest because they believe in something based on faith and that cannot be proven.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. .

:eyes:

[OneMoreDemocrat]

12. Care to address anything, or are you content to........

simply roll your little eyes?

[jazzjunkysue]

70. It's not conjecture that they asked to invade Iraq in 98. It's a fact.

The CIA has been killing people who get it it's way for decades. Nothing new about it. Also, there is evidence Henry Kissinger took out extra insurance on the towers right before they fell. I know you want the source, I'll see if I kept it. It's almost too scarey to keep on my harddrive.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

82. Who is arguing 'they' didn't want to invade Iraq?.........

Clearly the PNAC were behind the invasion, but that doesn't prove by any stretch of the imagination that they were behind 9/11.

How could Henry Kissinger take out insurance on something that he didn't own? Sounds like more MIHOP "proof" (read: bullshit) to me.

[Old and In the Way]

90. I don't think Kissinger is correct. Jay Silverstein, the guy who bought

the WTC a few months before the attacks probably did.

What I find intriguing about the purchase is this: What kind of investment was the WTC? There were a couple of factors at play here....the WTC had a glut of space available, so how was the ROI calculated? Someone had to be thinking about the end-of-life issue with the WTC....who'd be liable for those costs, the owner right? How many millions would it cost to overhaul or dismantle? Probably a hell of a lot more than the 70's cost to build it. Remember, too, there was a big issue with asbestos. Think of the removal costs that would be incurred in that.

Why would any consortium of investors look at this as a good investment deal?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

108. Silverstein bought no such extra insurance.........

in fact he was looking for money all over the place in order to clean up/rebuild.

You are saying that 9/11 was done as an insurance scam? And people wonder why MIHOP get no serious consideration. Oh boy.

[Sterling]

128. Site a source plz.

I am interested in your point. IMO the WTC was chosen as a target because of several factors. Dramatic effect, the building was full of asbestos and other toxic materials. One day the building would have to come down, if it was done outside of the context of a national emergency a huge liability would be involved.

Was 9-11 an insurance scam? No but a lot of money was made, and more importantly a lot of liability was avoided. Imagine having to compensate every person in DT NYC for damage to their health from the toxic dust? Or worse having to evacuate the city entirely. These would have been considerations under normal conditions but not in the context of a national emergency.

It was a convenient target and enough money has been doled out to keep people quite if they know anything at all.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

155. He had to go to court to get more money from his insurance....

company because they weren't initially going to pay as much as he would have liked. The insurance company wanted to call the damage to the site a single occurrence rather than two separate attacks and thereby payout much less.

http://www.realestatejournal.com/regionalnews/northeast/20041207-starkman.html

If he knew 'it' was coming, he would have made sure that his insurance covered everything.

And he didn't.

[Sterling]

159. Yes to get DOUBLE what it was supposed to pay...

He won, he made a fortune. Even if the payout was half what he got, he is making a mint. I don't think this supports your arguement. If anything it seems like he got a bonus to stop saying "I said just pull it" on PBS. Really it sounds like he was pissed and was fucking with them,lol. Who knows? I do know he got way more than he needed.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

166. He got double because is was considered two separate......

events by the courts, not the insurance company.

Had he insured it to get the maximum payoff (which is what you seem to think he wanted in the first place), he wouldn't have had to go to court to get it, therefore he must not have been in on the PNAC's plan, which is a shame because it would have been nice for them to discuss it with him beforehand.

How did he get more money than he needed? It wasn't like this was a glass of spilled milk he had to clean up.

[Old and In the Way]

129. Where did I say anything about an insurance scam?

My question is what investment consortium would purchase the WTC, given the ROI and end-of-life costs that this investment would require? Seems the WTC would be a mighty big risk with a relatively small chance for a payback.

Of course, as it turns out 2 months later, those points are moot. Bush wasn't the only person who hit the Trifecta on 9/11.....

[OneMoreDemocrat]

146. This is it!!!! This is the smoking gun!!!!!

We'll get 'em now.

[Sterling]

158. There is a smoking arsenal. Unfortunately.

I think the leaders of the world understand that 9-11 was LIHOP?MIHOP. What should they do though? I think it is obvious from the way the world at large is reacting to us that they understand what they are dealing with and want to prevent us from achieving it through economic and other means.

I think they want to avoid a WW if the can or at least weaken us before it occurs but as soon as Bush started kicking PNAC in play the rest of the world kinda said" WTF are you doing, ah this is what 9-11 was about".

For what it is worth, I really wish you were right but your just wrong. Really really wrong only because like most people if you accepted this information you would not know what to do with it. It really would change the world for you and it's just not something you want to do. I understand.

[vincent_vega_lives]

224. Master of delusion

So now you think the leaders of the world understand that 9-11 was LIHOP?MIHOP? Wow thats rich.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

229. Of course they do........

and if you don't believe it, then you are in the delusional minority it would seem.

[Sterling]

236. You guys keep kicking this while a new thread starts up tomorrow.

Thanks for your help guys. I hope you enjoyed your Sunday. lol

[vincent_vega_lives]

241. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

I'll kick it all day long silver! :party: ye-hoo.

Looks like we got a live one here! :bounce:

[Sterling]

248. Thx, here is one more.

Kick. The more that see it the more people find out. That has been how it has worked at DU over the years. The trend is toward people agreeing with LIHOP, not the other way around.

It's seems it is a losing battle for you but you have to admire your tenacity and refusal to acknowledge you are defeated. We need straw men to bring these threads to more people's attention and expose who weak PNAC's defense is.

[vincent_vega_lives]

262. Yeah, dat'll work.

Keep kickin. God you guys love that "straw man" thing doncha. Any argument you bring up the STRAW MAN! showes up.

[Sterling]

265. Yes thx. Love the ani too. Nice touch.

nt

[Sterling]

235. Oh shit the Washington Generals of the 9-11 forum are here.

Funny how you did not catch this on GD.

Why someone would spend most of their time on DU over the course of years railing against something they don't take seriously can't be a healthy motivation.

[vincent_vega_lives]

242. Interesting reference

Is that a double entendre?

[Sterling]

251. Maybe,lol.

You tell me Sir. I really just meant that you guys seem like a die hard team that does not mind losing every night. The WG's get paid for it, what's your motivation?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

254. Losing?........

How exactly have we lost anything?

You are espousing a nonsensical theory that has no basis in reality, while we sit by patiently wading through post after post, waiting for anything resembling proof (which of course will never materialize) to support your 'argument', while we simultaneously wonder how in the world people can be so misguided.

And you say we're losing.

Oh boy.

[Sterling]

267. People are becoming MIHOP/LIHOPers here more than they are not.

That is my measure of effectiveness in you argument. Over time this idea has become common and accepted by most DUers. The trend is overwhelmingly in that direction. Many people sounded like you back in 02. Not so much here anymore because it has been discussed in hundreds of threads over the years.

Hell the fact that you spent your Sunday on a thread you think is silly tells me you lose a lot.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

270. You seem fixated on this idea of winning and losing this......

argument.

Seemingly it is you who must lose a lot if you have to gain some measure of superiority in a self professed 'win' a flame war about a subject that has less credibility than the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I have no such need to win such an argument.

It's a real shame that you don't see it.

Further, ever since this thread got moved into it's current forum and out of GD, there only appears to be three people populating it.

Some victory.

:hi:

[Sterling]

281. It depends on what you consider winning I suppose?

You don't seem to care how credible your opinions are. You don't seem to be making an effort to prove any point, pass on any information. Like you said you are just entertaining yourself.

To me winning is seeing more people take the initiative to explore this topic. One at a time is fine with me. In that sense people who feel like I do have been winning here for a long time. It says a lot that when the message is free to be discussed and not funneled through the MSM people see through the lie. In other words DU is as close to a level playing field as this idea has had. When given equal time the LIHOP/MIHOP argument has prevailed.

Why is this important? Well your whole life at this point is being influenced by 9-11. If the LIHOPers are right, Americans should know this or we are in huge trouble. Much worse than many people are even aware of.

Lots of threads get moved to specified forums after they reach a certain post count. If you look at DU at any one time there are an average of less than 20 people per thread. Lots of people rad and don't post as well. It's not network TV but it is superior in what it offers the user in terms of following up the info in an interactive setting.

If you take a poll that number can go into the hundreds. That is just the nature of a BBS. You will learn these things in time.

This thread was added to the greatest page and over the next week I am sure several threads will address this topic on some level.

What have you accomplished? Oh that is right your just having fun.

Thx for the kick!!!!!!

[vincent_vega_lives]

243. Motivation

Purely for fun pewter my man. :argh:

[Sterling]

253. Really? That is so sad.

I can never get too mad at you after hearing that. I fell so sorry for you. I actually enjoy teaching and learning her at DU but I have far better things to do than take part in discussion of stuff I find silly.

Maybe you just need friends? If you are in the NY area I can introduce you to a cool circle of people that may help you find better stuff to do?

Anyway thx for your unintentional help. Try to find some time to fight the republicans if you can in your busy schedule.

[vincent_vega_lives]

266. OOOH! heres the pity post!

That's always a good one.

Damn I'm in a rare mood today. Spent three days cooped up in a white windowless room with a bunch of men in green suits.

Don't ask.
:hangover:

[Sterling]

268. No it's real. I do feel bad for you.

I don't want to be personal enemies with you. If you are truly anti Bush Nazi on some level we have to be allies. I really think it is unhealthy to focus so much energy on something you hold such little regard for. Just seems like a huge waste of time?


Were you in the hospital? I hope you are OK.

[vincent_vega_lives]

275. We can't be "personal enemies"

We aren't people, just persona on the internet. I don't know you and you don't know me. Just contentious posters, sparing with text.

I aint a Nazi about anything, except maybe the remote.

I have very little regard for MIHOP. I think it is myopic, simplistic and ignores human behavior, history, science, and pretty much every other human endevour.

I told you not to ask.

[Sterling]

289. Speak for yourself, I am a person.

Maybe you are just playing one here but I am very real. My ideas are sincere and my own. I have actually met many DUers in person. They are all very real people as well. Maybe that is your problem you think you are not talking to real humans so you fail to behave like one yourself.

You obviously have a different view of what this place is for than I and a lot of other DUers do.

"I have very little regard for MIHOP. I think it is myopic, simplistic and ignores human behavior, history, science, and pretty much every other human endeavor. "

And yet you spend a lot of time discussing it. Hmm....

Sounds like how LIHOP or MIHOP people feel about your worldview. I guess it is just a matter of posting your opinion and seeing how people react. The market place of ideas and all.

"I told you not to ask."
Well I did. I hope you are OK.

[vincent_vega_lives]

294. Well duh

My ideas are just as sincere as anyone elses. But I don't pretend to get wrapped up in personal relationships on the internet.

Point taken about meeting DUers in person. If more people did that there would be a lot less crap on the internet.

I do have a few boards that I am my self (mostly), but my persona here is far too contentious due to my positions on 9-11.

I spend a lot of time discussing the moon landing and the JFK assasination too when they come up. I have a think for conspirisy theories.

Oh I'm fine. Not medical.

[Sterling]

306. Maybe you should change that?

"I do have a few boards that I am my self (mostly), but my persona here is far too contentious due to my positions on 9-11."

I have some great friends who disagree with me about 9-11 and everything else. I think it is possible to engage in this discussion without alienating people you disagree with.

You can't start posting by telling people how stupid they are and expect to do anything other than entertain a childish fetish. I have seen you make an attempt to post a reasoned argument before so I know you know how to but you rarely do and thus only piss people off and influence no one.

[vincent_vega_lives]

313. I never engage in personal attacks

I don't start posting by "telling people how stupid they are" and any implication of such is a lie.

I assault people's ideas.

[WoodrowFan]

315. hummm

"I have very little regard for MIHOP. I think it is myopic, simplistic and ignores human behavior, history, science, and pretty much every other human endevour."


I think you're being too kind myself. ;)

[Old and In the Way]

157. Excellent retort!

I love it when the supporters of the Official Story provide rebuttals like this. No facts, lots of insults.

George Bush appreciates your support, though. Don't worry about the 3000 families of 9/11 who've yet to see justice served. Enabling these people to turn us into a 21st century 4th Reich is apparently OK with you.

[Sterling]

160. Funny is it not?

Some people here are more upset with people like you than they are with the crimes Bush is clearly committing. They give him the benefit of the doubt but you get scorn. It's really frightening. Germany in the 30's was like this.

[Old and In the Way]

168. Funny in a sad way.

Many of these poor saps are so wrapped up in their desire to believe in something that never was, they can't get their minds around the obvious that is.

I envy them really. I really want to believe, but the facts keep getting in the way.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

172. Facts?

Give me ONE.

Go ahead, just ONE.

[Old and In the Way]

182. You first.

It will be the 1st one in this thread from you.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

187. I'll take that as 'I Can't".........

Didn't think so.

Thanks for the effort though.

[Old and In the Way]

193. None are so blind as those that refuse to see.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

196. Glass houses and stones and such......

...and a plank in the eye to boot.

[Sterling]

202. Take it as they are all over the thread.

We all see them. We are trying to discuss them. You are not. Why are you still here? You are not winning an argument. Are you trying to win a spot on the Washington Generals of 9-11 threads? what is the deal?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

208. There's no argument to win........

At this point it's just entertainment really, I'm just here to see how crazy the MIHOPers really are.

It's more or less been a good way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

[Sterling]

211. Ok so you admit you are trolling the thread?

Well thanks for helping keep the thread active so others can notice it. Your input seems to be achieving the exact opposite of what you intended, lol.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

214. How do you figure?.........

I am being entertained (highly), by you and the Old person especially.

I just don't believe in MIHOP it's that simple, and nothing on this thread has made me feel otherwise.

[Sterling]

230. Admitting you are not interested in a topic, just posting for entertainment

Is considered trolling any where other than the lounge. It's not respected on DU and could get you banned.

Who knows if you admit that kind of thing often enough you may have to register a new screen name to continue using DU for you personal jollies?

Anyway plz keep kicking this thread, thx.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

234. Well, I started hoping that there would be something new.......

on the MIHOP front you know, a fact or two, which of course there wasn't...just more lipstick on a tiny pig.

Then it just progressed to see how crazy the accusations and speculation would become....and I wasn't disappointed.

[Sterling]

258. Make up your mind? Your here for fun or you are here to learn.

lol. Yes you made some pretty uninformed and crazy speculations on this thread. I agree %100.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

263. Uniformed and crazy speculations you say?

I'd point out the irony, but I fear it may be lost on you.

[Sterling]

269. You could point out something.

So far your efforts here have been pointless.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

273. Yours on the other hand haven't.........

I never really knew how out of touch with reality the tiny MIHOP minority was.

Sad really.

[Sterling]

276. Yes we are all just a bunch of silly nuts.

What else you got? Kick.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

279. You do realize (I hope) that no-one is in this forum......

so kicking this thread isn't really accomplishing what you think it's accomplishing.

Just wanted to point that out.

[Sterling]

292. Actually there are people here and.....

It made the greatest threads list so people will still see it.

Honestly I think it has served it's purpose at this point. There will be another in a day or so and surely it will be discussed in the context of other topics as well.

Thx for the help. I hope we can get your participation on future threads as well.

[Sterling]

199. Read the thread. Discuss the other posts with facts and info.

Otherwise you look silly, and even a little troll like. The rest of us can see the whole thread you know. We see what is being posted even if you pretend it is not there. It's not making you look good.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

210. You think I'm trying to 'look good'?.......

I don't subscribe myself to the crackpot wing of the Democratic party, and I am far, far from interested in 'looking good' to you or anyone else who has planted themselves in it.

[Sterling]

213. No I would never assume you cared what you come across as.

That much is clear from the way you have conducted yourself and your failure to make a rational or compelling post on this thread.

Again thank you for helping raise awareness of this thread within the general community. You have also made a wonderful straw man for the LIHOP people (unintentionally of course).

[OneMoreDemocrat]

217. And for all of your 'proof'.........

you've offered none to move your argument forward.

Oh, and thank you for keeping the bottom of the Democratic barrel alive and kicking, I'm sure it'll help when '06 come around; maybe we can run on a Bush was behind 9/11 platform...what do you think?

Oh, and while you're spending time poking around 'shadowgov.info', maybe you could spare some time and try to find information (and it's plentiful) on who actually attacked us on 9/11....hint: it rhymes Bal Bida.

[Sterling]

226. Not with you, but we can all see that is a foolish endeavor.

I have seen a couple of DUers today profess they have learned a lot from these threads recently, so you are mistaken. In fact I think you have helped us do that by providing a straw man Alan Colmbes would be proud of. Trust me I am not desperate for your support,I like you better on the other team. Your input her has been counter productive.

But again, thanks for kicking the thread. Hell it was the top ranked greatest all day long!!!!

No way we could have done it without you.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

231. Congratulations.....

on converting 'a couple of DUers' to your side.

It cuts both ways though, because as this thread progresses, one can see that there is nothing to this MIHOP nonsense, it is and will remain where it belongs, in the garbage.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

170. Keep your bullshit to yourself........

You and your ilk are the ones who are an insult to the 9/11 families, because rather than facing the reality (and trying to understand that reality) that we were attacked by Osama bin Laden on Sept. 11th, you'd rather waste valuable time trying to pin the blame on Bush.

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it....doubtful the 9/11 families want to hear that.

Beyond that, aside from pure speculation and wishful thinking there has not been one single fact in this entire thread to support the allegations that the Bush Administration was behind the attacks.

[Old and In the Way]

191. Sounds like I struck a raw nerve.

Can you explain why James Baker is leading the $1BB lawsuit by the families of 9/11 victims against Saudi Arabia? If they (15/19 hijackers and OBL) were behind 9/11, why would the Bush family consigliere be defending the Sauds?

When the families of the 9/11 victims start believing the Official Story, I'll back off.

Again, we are awaiting your facts defending Bush.

"I saw the first plane crash into the WTC on TV. I thought to myself, that's one bad pilot."

[OneMoreDemocrat]

194. Baker is a pig, just like the rest of the Bush Administration....

so it's not surprising that he's doing what he's doing.

Please, the 9/11 families and everyone else who is a part of the reality-based community understands who attacked us on 9/11, and it wasn't Bush and friends.

You won't find any defense of Bush here, but you'll no doubt keep looking....good lick with that, you'll need it.

Is that quote supposed to prove something other than Bush is an idiot?

[bpilgrim]

203. that quote proves they are using classic psyop techniques

and following a script of lies and deceit to mislead the people.

they had the means, opportunity and motive and that puts them at the TOP of the suspects list, deal with it.

peace

[OneMoreDemocrat]

220. Well thank God people like you can see right through......

the lies and deception of their sinister classic psyop techniques.

It's a good skill to have and I hope it takes you far.

Consider 'it' dealt with.

[Sterling]

223. "It's a good skill to have and I hope it takes you far."

Some got it, some obviously don't.

[Sterling]

205. Yes Baker is a pig. The 9-11 families are the ones suing.

Baker is defending the SA elites. Why are you not picking any of this stuff up?

[Sterling]

201. "You and your ilk"

too funny.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

204. Thanks, that's more or less my reaction to this entire thread....

and the crackpot ideas contained herein.

So who was controlling the remote controlled planes? Babs Bush?

Too funny indeed.

[Sterling]

206. And more or less the entire threads reaction to you.

lol

[OneMoreDemocrat]

212. Oh no, not the entire thread.......

All six of you.


Horror of horrors!!!!


Please.

[vincent_vega_lives]

233. Not quite Silver

There are a few sensable people left on this board.

I mainly come here for the technical jousting. It is amazing the tripe that is spouted as fact around here. It's entertaining I'll admit.

[Sterling]

239. "There are a few sensable people left on this board"

Did you mean "sensible"? I will assume so for the purpose of this post.

There are a lot of great people on this site. It says a lot about you that you would show them contempt.

In reality there are a few people here with some sort of unhealthy obsession with antagonizing people looking for discussion.

It is obvious most DUers do not subscribe to your view point. Why not just accept it and move on. But hey don't do me any favors. You guys (while few in number) help out more than I think you know in getting attention drawn to these threads while offering very little in productive discussion which helps people see the nature of the issue.

Thx.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

249. You are giving yourself way too much credit........

the fact is that there have been only about 10 posters who agree with you with regard to this utter nonsense, and they have each posted anywhere from 20 to 40 times.

This is far from being the majority of DU community.

Further, the contempt that we are showing for those few misguided souls who cling to the MIHOP nonsense is far outweighed by the contempt shown for the rest of America and the world by the continuing disregard displayed (by these same MIHOPers) to the actual and verifiable threat that Islamic Fundamentalism in the wrong hands can be and clearly has been.

[Sterling]

257. You have been here for a couple of weeks. Anyone who knows DU knows

that over the last three years LIHOP/MIHOP which was once responded to like you have on this thread is now more or less a common understanding on DU. Search for the polls on LIHOP and MIHOP. The are always popular and always very lopsided in favor of LIHOP.

Even the Washington Generals of the 9-11 forum don't try to deny that.

That is why VVlives specified "A few". Maybe you are the only sane person in a nut house?

Personally I cannot take credit for that. I was one of the initial group of posters who discussed this so I guess I helped get the word out.


Again you show your lack of understanding of the issue you are offering an opinion on.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

260. A few weeks, right............

My opinion for the 100th time is that MIHOP is utter nonsense and there isn't a shred of evidence anywhere (not even shadowgov.info) to prove ANY of it.

I stand with reality; Al Queda members hijacked airplanes and flew them into building in New York and Washington, killing over 3,000 people.

To believe otherwise is mind-numbingly nonsensical and dangerously false.

[Sterling]

271. I know that is your opinion. that os about all you have made clear.

You have an opinion, we know that.

My point is that over time DU has become pro LIHOP/MIHOP. It happened because people that had opinions like yours set them aside and looked at information that changed their outlook. You have made it clear you don't feel that to be a worthwhile pursuit.

If you honestly looked at all the info and made a mature decision on it and still don't see it, fine no one is going to force you to accept it. From reading your post I feel that you never really made the effort. at least nothing you have posted shows me you have.

DU most likely will continue to be effective in getting the truth out about the BFEE PNAC Nazi's, the whole truth, including what some people don't want people to know about 9-11.

Cheers to DU for all it has done!!!!

[OneMoreDemocrat]

278. Look.........

I downloaded, printed and read the PNAC flagship position paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" about three years ago when it became widely known that it was available.

I've read all of the pertinent writings and I know (for the most part) the story.

I think the PNAC is a dangerous, dangerous group of people and they are directly responsible for us being involved in Iraq and for our offensive posture where it regards our Foreign Policy, but even with these feelings I can simply not find the evidence to prove that they nor the Bush Administration as a whole were behind 9/11.

[Sterling]

283. Well so we have some common ground.

I do question how much of PNAC you actually have read and question your understanding of it even more based on you comments so far. If you would focus you posting on proving your argument rather than insulting those you disagree with you will be treated more respectfully by others and possible even influence d=someone to agree with you.

You don't have to alienate these people and you certainly don't have to antagonize them for entertainment. You get what you put into this place in terms of respect and education.

No one is loved by all DUers but I don't understand why anyone would go out of their way to piss of people on the site to entertain themselves if they planned on contributing to the forums in any meaningful way.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

290. Please don't patronize me...........

I have read and understood the writings of the PNAC and pertinent others as much and as well as you have.

Just because I don't come to the same conclusions that you do there is no reason to suggest that I don't understand the issues involved.

It is not for me to defend my point of view on a thread entitled "The Case for MIHOP", when the thread never once layed out a credible argument that would lend credence to it's title.

I hold the prevailing view that everyone save the tiniest minority of the far-left wing holds with regard to 9/11, and clearly in a thread that professes to make a case for MIHOP and does not in any way do so, I can hardly be blamed of 'not proving my argument', when clearly I have had nothing to argue against.

[Sterling]

293. Well actually it is your place to defend your own opinion.

Until you realize that you won't influence anyone the way you would like to.

I am not patronizing you. I honestly cannot take your word that you actually read that document much less understand it. I base this on the fact you have not demonstrated an understanding of the material within the doc. Honestly you have not demonstrated any research skills at all. Just flame bait in the form of opinion.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

299. How in the world does one refute speculation?

Your argument has been as follows (more or less paraphrased):

"The PNAC wanted to invade Iraq. They knew that somehow they had to figure out a way that would be acceptable to the American public, then 9/11 happened.....obviously they caused it. Now prove me wrong"

As you can plainly see, this is impossible to refute, and has remained completely unproven throughout the life of this thread.

[Sterling]

300. Easy with facts...

duh...

[OneMoreDemocrat]

303. Alright then.......

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/US/resources/9.11.report/911Report_Ch5.pdf

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf


Happy Reading.

[Sterling]

308. Seen it.

Take something from that and make an argument of it. Lets see what you got. I bet it's an excuse i get instead.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

312. What the hell are you talking about?

This is the definitive fact-based tome on the matter, and you ask me to make an argument of it?

One would think that since the MIHOP theory runs counter to reality, it would be you who would face the task of disproving the 9/11 Commission's findings.

I guess I can see why you won't even try.

[vincent_vega_lives]

256. There's the stainless I remember

ohhh I'd better spell all my words right or Mr Sterling will get the upper hand.

Since this site has spell check, it's pretty obvious that I don't really give a shit. It's the fucking internet.

Kiss the board's collective ass, make like you are the boards protecter against an obviously souless foe, based on an internet thread. "Says a lot about you" Oh please spare me. :puke:

Make sure to show I'm the minority, and we all know minorities are wrong...right? Disagring with the majority is "unhealthy" you know. Oh and again with the protectorate of the masses. All those poor antagonized people! :nopity:

Again with the minority! Jezus lock me up! But then the come'round...see you are actualy HELPING US! AH HA!

Damn, how can I compete with that?

[Sterling]

261. You remember me? How special.

You have made me look rather good in comparison over the years, thx.
Hey we all make spelling mistakes but most of us don't try to speak with the same sense of final authority as you. Most of us think dismissing things with one line insults is weak so at least you should spell check when you set us all straight with your decree's by fiat.

A long time ago I did not understand people like you. I had no idea why someone would behave so poorly in front of the whole site over something like this. Over time it became clear people are dismissing your point of view. More people are coming round to MIHOP/LIHOP. To me that is rewarding in a sense. I like most of the people here what can I say? You don't. I would not bother wasting my time with a bunch of people I did not respect. It's just not mature or healthy.

[vincent_vega_lives]

272. Well you obviously remember me.

OHHHH superiority post ZING! gosh I feel small.

Sorry never drove any Italian cars.

Dude, I'm in front of a computer, I aint in front of you. I could be anybody anywhere, and so could you.

So when do you take psych II?



Ok serious for a sec. Mark my words. If enough people "come round" to MIHOP/LIHOP, it will spell the end of the Democratic party as we know it. You will need your own party. So gitty-up.

It is my contention that we have already started down that road with the myopic "anyone but BUSH" approach. WTF kind of platform is that? If that were an advertising campaign the Donald would say "You're FIRED"!

[Sterling]

286. It's hard not to.

You have less than 500 post mostly on a subject you profess to be silly and beneath you. That kind of behavior really stands out.

I thought you had left long ago because I have not spent that much time her in the last year. Surprise surprise you are alive and well in the 9-11 dungeon. You have made a tiny DU career out of this line of discussion/disruption.

It's just really, really weird. I tend to notice that kind of thing. You may think people who talk about this stuff are strange but what does it make you when you are obsessed with these people?

[vincent_vega_lives]

291. Yes I was gone

Had far more than 500 posts. Notice that I made no cheesy attempt to create a new persona of any sort.

The 9-11 "dungeon" (that is too good a term for it btw) has it's share of strange fellows. Obsessed? Not quite. I reserve that for other things. Call it a casual hobby. Some of these people are truely out on a limb.

[Sterling]

295. You left and lost your old name?

I don't get it? Is that what you are saying?

Actually I just checked and in the last 25 days you have posted about ten to one in this forum compared to other topics. It ain't easy to lie to a skeptic.

Why would you tell such an easy lie to get caught in?

[vincent_vega_lives]

302. Huh?

1. Yes my name used to be Vincent_Vega

2. I pretty much ONLY post in the 9-11 forum. when did I say different.?

3. And the lie is?...

[Sterling]

310. Wow worse than I though then...

You had a whole other career of this stuff. To each their own. I have definitely learned a lot from this thread today. I have a far better understanding of where you are coming from. Thanks.

For a minute there I thought you were a Democrat or a Progressive working to help promote progressive ideals and fight republicans. Now I see that you are just here to "debunk" bush's culpability in 9-11 and talk about guns.

How could I be so stupid.

[vincent_vega_lives]

311. Are you insane?

What lie are you refering to?

What career? It was a SCREEN NAME. I just got a different one.

WTF are you talking about?

[Name removed]

314. Deleted message

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

[Sterling]

325. Your career as a Washington General of course.

I am completely sane. I don't have some childish fetish with antagonizing people for entertainment. Hell of a lot more than I can say for you.

[vincent_vega_lives]

326. It's called debate

If you would care to check out other threads on the September 11th forum you see that I am quite involved it debating 9-11 conspiracy theories.

If people are antagonized by it is because of their own insecurities.

[bpilgrim]

207. welcome to the minority

the word is out and spreading EVERYSECOND...
more than half of new yorkers now believe in LIHOP at the least.

Thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNET's!

peace

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[OneMoreDemocrat]

122. Yeah, I guess he and the fire department.........

should have decided to leave it standing there.

I hope you don't mean to say this is proof of 9/11 being an inside job.

Talk about a laugh.

[Sterling]

124. How did they "pull it" when did the set up for demo?

They did not do it on 9-11. Who does R Clark think did it? Who knows? He has however provided key pieces of insight that can help someone who is interested in scrutinizing the official story.

There are a lot of people who have come out with Little pieces of the story. Things they found odd or just wrong. That does not mean they have considered how there info fits into the big picture. Some have though. I think the ladies name is Syble Edmonds? She is one who seems to have a bit of info that also understands how it fits in with an over all picture of a 9-11 cover up.

[yodermon]

137. It was picture perfect controlled demolition.

Are you suggesting that Silverstein and the fire dept. PLANTED the explosives to execute a controlled demolition of wtc 7 on the afternoon of 9/11?

Which is moot, because the MSM story is that this building collapsed, perfectly, as recoreded in the above image, due to fire and/or diesal fuel tank explosions. Which is it? Which do you, personally, believe?

This, all of this, is circumstantial evidence. But this is not a court of law, it is the court of public opinion and Commen sense. There is LESS circumstantial evidence to support the MSM story, yet you and most others, believe it. Why?

[jmowreader]

148. Diesel fuel EXPLOSIONS?

Anyone who doesn't believe in MIHOP can believe in it now.

If they're seriously suggesting that WTC 7 collapsed because of diesel fuel explosions, they just blew their whole case. Diesel cannot explode. It burns well but cannot explode, which is one of the many reasons it is so popular.

Diesel can't explode, fuel oil can't explode, kerosene can't explode. Gasoline explodes readily but there's no evidence that WTC 7 had a huge gasoline tank; we know about the diesel tank.

[Sterling]

162. The WTC 7 case is unexplainable in the terms they have given.

I never decisively judge until all the facts are in but it is clear their explanation is bullshit.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

163. Well, I guess a controlled demolition by the PNAC.......

and their evil minions is the only other explaination.

Try this from the New York Times, in which you'll find it mentioned that if the diesel tanks were compromised, there was enough feul to aid in bringing the building down in conjunction with the debris that had been falling on it and setting it on fire all day.


A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel
By JAMES GLANZ (NYT) 1557 words
Published: November 29, 2001

Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.

Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11.


The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.

As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[Sterling]

176. Very familiar with that explanation.

There were no "raging fires" only small scatted fires and no major wreckage hit the building.
don't take my word for it.
You can see these things with your own eyes. If you have ever visited the site and see where B7 was in context to the towers you understand why it was not hit by major wreckage. It is also clear form the video that the building had not received catastrophic damage even to the exterior.

check these out:
http://shadowgov.info/video_wtc7.html
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc-7_collapse.mpg
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

I was there, I live in the area. The building looked fine except for a couple of small fires on a couple of floors. It looked nothing like the Madrid building or the WTC 1 or 2 in terms of damage.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

179. As soon as you can come up with websites.......

with names different that 'shadowgov.info' to support your claims, let me know.

[Sterling]

227. There are three links, take your pick. All the info is referenced in the

MSM, for what that is worth. As soon as you can come up with a screen name better than "one more Democrat" maybe I will read your posts, yes that would be silly but you seem to think that way.

It seems like you are really looking for excuses to be lazy.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

240. My article was from the New York Times.........

which laid out a credible, realistic explanation of why the building fell, not one filled with nonsensical ravings trying to connect dots gleaned mostly from active imaginations, though I'm sure you'd prefer the latter to the former.

[Moderator]

219. OneMoreDemocrat

Please remember that DU's copyright rules require you to post only four paragraphs from the original source, plus a link back to the original source.

DU Moderator

[OneMoreDemocrat]

222. It was archived and I had to pay for it in order to view it........

The only way to display it was for me to post the whole thing.

In the future I won't do it, sorry.

[vincent_vega_lives]

298. Diesel can certainly burn

Along with everthing else in an office building. VERY well too. And gets things like steel very hot after exposure to it for 7 hours.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

305. Vinnie.........

Dissent from the reality-based community is not permitted.

Watch your back.

:hi:

[LunaC]

14. Jay Rockefeller worked on the Senate Intelligence Committee Report

HE sees the PNAC connection, even if you don't.

ROCKEFELLER: It was clear to all of us in this room who were watching that, and to many others, that they had made up their mind that they were going to go to war. And I believe to this day, and I always have and I’ve said so publicly many times in regretting my vote, that there was a predetermination, even going back to 1998 in a letter to Bill Clinton, saying, "The time for diplomacy has ended and now is the time for the use of military force."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38650-2004Jul9_3.html

[tx_dem41]

21. Of course, your snipped quote from Sen. Rockefeller is where

he is talking about the Iraqi invasion, not 9-11. This thread is about 9-11. In fact, you snipped out too soon. The next paragraph reads:

"So the justification for the preemptive invasion of Iraq was: one, that Iraq had stockpiled weapons, chemical and biological; two, that they were actively pursuing a nuclear weapon; three, that Iraq might use its alliances with terrorist organizations, including Al Qaida, to use these weapons to strike at the United States. "

Did you purposely leave out the context of the quote you included?

[LunaC]

30. 911 was used as the pretext for the Iraq invasion in case you forgot

You should really read ALL of Rockefeller's comments. To continue the snippet that YOU omitted:

"Of the first two administration points, the case for invasion, the committee details, as Chairman Roberts has indicated, how these key pillars were not supported and should not have been there. The national intelligence estimate was given to us, at our request -- at the request of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about 10 days before the vote came. It was done in three weeks. It was thrown together. It was based upon fragmentary intelligence, ancient intelligence.

And then there was this enormous difference between the classified version, where all kinds of doubts and caveats were included, and then the white paper, which was the unclassified version, which all of a sudden everything moved in one direction toward, "They’ve got them, they’re ready to use them, and watch out."

ROCKEFELLER: I don’t think that was an accident.

Let me just finish by saying, again, an emphasis on this relentless public campaign prior to the war, which repeatedly characterized the Iraqi weapons program in more ominous and threatening terms than any intelligence would have allowed. In short, we went to war in Iraq based on false claims. "

Let me repeat that last line for you: we went to war in Iraq based on false claims. "

[tx_dem41]

31. Thank you for adding more quotes (I read the whole transcript) that show..

no support of the MIHOP theory.

[LunaC]

36. "There are none so blind, as those who would not see."

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......then it must be an aardvark!

[tx_dem41]

38. Give me some concrete evidence that its a duck...

and I might agree. Until then, it just MIGHT be an aardvark.

[AZCat]

39. Or Justice Scalia...

He's been known to exhibit ducklike qualities ("Quack-quack").

[Spazito]

40. What would be helpful , given the excellent argument put forth...

by LunaC, via links and quotes, on the possibility or probability of PNAC involvement, is if you could provide an equally excellent summary in rebuttal. Until such a rebuttal surfaces, one has to lean toward the side that produces backup documents to bolster their argument.

Saying 'not true' without backup doesn't cut it, imo.

[tx_dem41]

41. Ummm, maybe some concrete evidence to the actual 9-11 attack.

Nothing close to that is included in the OP.

Oh, and saying "true" without such backup doesn't cut it, imo. You see, you are the one proposing a theory (the MIHOP theory at that). Thus, presenting the backup is your job, not mine.

[Spazito]

42. LOL, in my mind that constitutes a 'not true' post

and, to repeat, that doesn't cut it as any kind of credible counter argument to the position posited by the OP. I understand if you cannot provide counter evidence to the points made by the OP, it does take a great deal of work and effort, especially, given the excellent work done by LunaC.

Edited to add: I support LunaC's position so why would it be up to me or her to provide evidence to counter a position I think has merit? If I remember my debating rules, it is point and counterpoint, not by the same person but by each side.

[tx_dem41]

44. Just because it has merit to you, doesnt make it a plausible theory.

I haven't said that the theory is "not true". Again, its your job to provide concrete evidence. Can you point me to some?

[AZCat]

45. More importantly...

Failure to refute any points made by a group of (mostly) anonymous posters on the internet is not verification of same points.

[tx_dem41]

47. I haven't refuted any of the separate incidents in the OP.

That doesnt mean they sum up to proving the MIHOP theory. As a scientist, that is not a leap of faith I will make without concrete evidence.

[AZCat]

48. I agree

Apparently there is some disagreement about the concept of "concrete evidence", and as long as one side has different standards than the other we will never agree.

I, for one, cannot accept "Cui Bono" as evidence sufficient to implicate someone in a crime. But then again, I'm just an anonymous poster on the internet.

[tx_dem41]

49. And, so am I.

And I will hold to that standard, regardless.

[Sterling]

184. If that is your point why are you here.

I could care if I know who these people are, I just want a serious rational discussion on the information. Not people's opinions on the merit of other posters sanity or other such nonsense. If you don't think places like DU can get out credible information you really don't understand what goes on here.

Sorry your posts reeks of that CNN "of those loonies on the internet" crap. That shit is just fear from the fact the MSM knows they jumped the shark with a lot of Americans and more and more people are turning away from their substandard journalism.

Either people care that their opinions are supported or they don't. No excuses for lazy thinkers.

Some people think of DU as just a place to pick up the latest talking points for the water cooler I suppose?

[AZCat]

319. I do not understand what you mean

Please clarify your post - it doesn't seem to respond to what my original post said. Are you sure you responded to the correct post?

[Spazito]

50. Wrong, one who disputes a position that has been put forward...

should put forward a counter argument if they wish to be seen as credible and not simply a naysayer.

As a scientist, one would think you would be quite happy to provide counter-research to refute the points made.

[tx_dem41]

52. Where is the link to the...

... 9/11 Commission Report?

[Spazito]

53. Please, by all means, provide it!

along with a dissemination of the document in how it refutes the OP's post. I would welcome it!

[tx_dem41]

54. It in no way refutes the individual facts in the OP.

It just has a whole lot more that tends to better fill in the gaps. With lots of concrete evidence.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

77. Your camp are the ones who are disputing a position........

that's been put forward....i.e., the reality that the planes were hijacked by a group headed by Osama bin Laden and then flown into buildings in New York and Washington.

That's the reality, and a quote about "a new Pearl Harbor" from a 1998 position paper from a bunch of hawks in the government is not enough to overturn that reality.

Again, a lot of conjecture and zero proof....though it would make a great plot line for a Tom Clancy thriller.

Keep trying, this is quite entertaining.

[Spazito]

80. I agree, it is quite entertaining!

I love it when those who think simply saying 'it ain't so' carries the same credibility of a well researched post, it reminds me of the 45 minute mushroom cloud supporters, no facts just bombastic rhetoric.

Thanks for the laugh!

[OneMoreDemocrat]

85. All they have is the "Pearl Harbor" quote............

To bolster their "theory", and even that is a stretch.

The quote is "...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.", and it points out that the PNAC looked at this as a long time project to shape the middle east (and then the world I guess) to a place that was much more conducive to American interests.

This is a far cry from saying "The ONLY way for us to achieve our evil plans for World Domination (tm) is for there to be a new Pearl Harbor, and if one doesn't happen by chance, we'll make it happen."

9/11 happened and these murderers took advantage of it; nothing more, nothing less.

[Spazito]

89. Ummm, how do you explain ignoring the 52, count em, 52

warnings ignored by the bush cabal? How do you explain the ignoring of the August 6th PDB? How do you explain the replacement of an experienced person in charge of NORAD and the placement of someone, on the morning of September 11, who had NO idea of the processes and procedures to be instituted in the event of an aircraft hijacking? How do you explain the preponderance of PNAC signators being in key positions of the bush admin?

These are ALL mere coincidences?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

91. The ignorance of the warnings........

is a clear indication that the Administration didn't take terrorism seriously, which Richard Clarke refers to again and again.

According to Randi, the guy they put in place had been in the business for 30 or so years so I doubt he had no idea of the procedures, he just didn't do anything about the situation.

Where would one expect the PNACers to be, in a Democratic Administration?

[Spazito]

93. Why didn't the administration take it seriously?

With 52 warnings, Clark's URGENT memos and the August 6th PDB, why did they ignore them???

"Where would one expect the PNACers to be in, in a Democratic Administration?" ROFL, funny, daddy bush told them to get lost, gosh, his administration was Republican too, right? Hmmmm, guess not all Republican administrations were PNAC oriented, only the current one. Wonder why?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

98. Uh.........

Daddy Bush had most of them in his Administration (Cheney was his Defense Secretary and Quayle was his Vice-President if I recall correctly), or as close friends and/or business partners, it was Clinton that told them to 'get lost'.

Why would there be warnings coming in about Al Queda about to hijack planes if the PNAC were the ones behind it? Wouldn't they do a better job of keeping the conspiracy a secret?

One would think that there would have been no warnings for foreign and/or domestic intelligence to pick up on if it were an inside job.

You can do better than that can't 'ya?

[Spazito]

112. Ummm, here is daddy's Cabinet vs baby bush's

let's play "Find the PNACers on each" shall we!

GHW Bush Cabinet

Executive Department Secretary Service Dates
Secretary of State James A. Baker III 1989-92
Lawrence S. Eagleburger 1992-93
Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas F. Brady* 1989-93
Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney 1989-93
Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh* 1989-91
William P. Barr 1991-93
Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan Jr. 1989-93
Secretary of Agriculture Clayton K. Yeutter 1989-91
Edward Madigan 1991-93
Secretary of Commerce Robert A. Mosbacher Sr. 1989-92
Barbara H. Franklin 1992-93
Secretary of Labor Elizabeth H. Dole 1989-90
Lynn Martin 1991-93
Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis W. Sullivan 1989-93
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack F. Kemp 1989-93
Secretary of Transportation Samuel K. Skinner 1989-91
Andrew Card 1992-93
Secretary of Energy James D. Watkins 1989-93
Secretary of Education Lauro F. Cavazos 1989-91
Lamar Alexander 1991-93
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs Edward J. Derwinski 1989-92

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1408.html


George Walker Bush's Cabinet



The Most Comprehensive Online Guide to American Politics search POLITICS1:
DIRECTORY: Home | The Presidency | P2004 Race | The States | Political Parties
FAQ | Issues | News Blog | News Links | Job Bank
Campaign Buttons | Bookstore | Awards | About Us | Email Us

The Politics1 Guide to the
Bush Administration Cabinet

GEORGE W. BUSH (R-Texas)
President of the United States

DICK CHENEY (R-Wyoming)
Vice President of the United States



THE PRESIDENTIAL CABINET & CABINET-RANK OFFICIALS:

Department of
AGRICULTURE



MIKE JOHANNS
Secretary
Department of
COMMERCE



CARLOS GUTIERREZ
Secretary
Department of
DEFENSE



DON RUMSFELD
Secretary
Department of
EDUCATION



MARGARET SPELLINGS
Secretary

Department of
ENERGY



SAM BODMAN
Secretary
Department of HEALTH
& HUMAN SERVICES



MIKE LEAVITT
Secretary
Department of
HOMELAND SECURITY



MICHAEL CHERTOFF
Secretary-Designate
Department of HOUSING
& URBAN DEVELOPMENT



ALPHONSO JACKSON
Secretary

Department of the
INTERIOR



GALE NORTON
Secretary
Department of
JUSTICE



AL GONZALES
Attorney General
Department of
LABOR



ELAINE CHAO
Secretary
Department of
STATE



CONDOLEEZZA RICE
Secretary

Department of
TRANSPORTATION



NORM MINETA
Secretary
Department of the
TREASURY



JOHN SNOW
Secretary
Department of
VETERANS AFFAIRS



JIM NICHOLSON
Secretary
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY



STEPHEN JOHNSON
Acting Administrator

Office of
MANAGEMENT & BUDGET



JOSH BOLTEN
Director
Office of NATIONAL
DRUG CONTROL POLICY



JOHN WALTERS
Director
U.S. TRADE
REPRESENTATIVE



ROBERT ZOELLICK
Representative
THE WHITE
HOUSE



ANDY CARD
Presidential Chief of Staff





OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS (SUB-CABINET LEVEL):

NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL



STEPHEN HADLEY
Natl. Security Advisor
THE WHITE
HOUSE



SCOTT McCLELLAN
Press Secretary
THE WHITE
HOUSE



KARL ROVE
Senior Advisor
THE WHITE
HOUSE



HARRIET MIERS
Counsel

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY



PORTER GOSS
Director
FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATIONS



ROBERT MUELLER
Director
NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COUNCIL



STEVE FRIEDMAN
Director
FEDERAL RESERVE
BOARD



ALAN GREENSPAN
Chairman


http://www.politics1.com/cabinet.htm


and, in case you missed this list of PNACERS from the OP, to help you with the list I posted below:

Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense

Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense

Elliott Abrams - Member of the National Security Council

John Bolton - Undersecretary for Arms Control and InternationalSecurity

Richard Perle - Chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board

Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State

John Bolton - Undersecretary of State for Disarmament

Zalmay Khalilzad - White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition




Now onto your other point:

"Why would there be warnings coming in about Al Queda about to hijack planes if the PNAC were the ones behind it? Wouldn't they do a better job of keeping the conspiracy a secret?

One would think that there would have been no warnings for foreign and/or domestic intelligence to pick up on if it were an inside job.

Quite the opposite, PNAC is NOT the CIA, the FBI, etc and, therefore, it totally consistent for those agencies to try repeatedly and urgently to warn the bush admin. Again, why did they ignore the repeated warnings???

[OneMoreDemocrat]

115. Who would you expect to be in Bush's Cabinet and........

Administration? All of these people believe the same thing about what America is and should be...it's called surrounding yourself with like minded individuals who will move in the direction you most agree with......every President does it.

I already told you why they ignored the warnings, but here it is again in great big letters:

THE WARNINGS OF THE IMPENDING TERRORIST ATTACKS ON NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON WERE IGNORED BECAUSE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T TAKE TERRORISM OR OSAMA BIN LADEN SERIOUSLY.

Does that help at all?

[Spazito]

120. ROFLMAO!

Okay, so I gather by this, you realize your error in saying daddy bush had PNACers in his cabinet as you did not list any, I appreciate your acknowledgment of that.

Could you please provide links to your contention that:

"THE WARNINGS OF THE IMPENDING TERRORIST ATTACKS ON NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON WERE IGNORED BECAUSE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T TAKE TERRORISM OR OSAMA BIN LADEN SERIOUSLY"

According to a document you have touted as excellent, the 9/11 Commission report and Condi's testimony, the bush administration to Bin Laden and terrorism very seriously and was a HIGH priority. So it seems, the document you believe is excellent, as do I, has disproved your point. Ironic isn't it!

[OneMoreDemocrat]

123. Aside from Cheney being Bush Sr's. Defense Secretary......

and Dan Quayle his Vice-President, and the fact that the PNAC wasn't formed until 1997 (you'll note that's five years after Bush left office I'm sure), I guess I can't point to any more of them.

I never once mentioned the 9/11 commission or Condi Rice, so I can't really speak to that....though I will say that the mere fact that they ignored the warnings is pretty clear evidence that they didn't take the threat seriously.

So far, none of my points have been disproven, ironically or otherwise; but I do encourage you to keep trying.

[Spazito]

126. As have none of the points made by the OP been

disproven by you or any others of the 't'ain't so' crowd. Your points have indeed been disproven by the very fact you have no documentation to back up your 'ya but' type of debate. Again, to simply say, t'ain't so, doesn't constitute a rebuttal.

"I never one mentioned the 9/11 commission Condi Rice, so I can't really speak to that....though I will say that the mere fact that they ignored the warnings is pretty clear evidence that they didn't take the threat seriously."

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-13-05 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #76

78. I agree....the 9/11 Commission Report and Richard Clarke's book


were both very well researched.






OneMoreDemocrat (291 posts) Sun Feb-13-05 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #78

79. Excellent...........


It is indeed interesting, that MIHOPers completely ignore Richard Clarke, because he's just one of those crackpot 'Coincidence Theorists'.

Seeing as you agreed with the post in regard to the 9/11 Commission Report and Richard Clarke's book I assumed you believed both were excellent, well researched resources. If you meant that only the Richard Clarke book was the well researched resource, I apologize for my assumption. I read Richard Clarke's book, excellent, and nowhere in that book does he negate the argument put forward by the OP nor does he support it, what his book does do is highlight the numerous and urgent attempts he made to try and get action from the bush administration.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

127. That's one of the main problems with you MIHOP folks.........

You make grand assumptions which aren't based on reality and then call it proof, then demand that others refute your newly found proof.

"Seeing as you agreed with the post in regard to the 9/11 Commission Report and Richard Clarke's book I assumed you believed both were excellent, well researched resources"

This is getting boring.

[Sterling]

134. You make grand assumptions which aren't based on reality and then call it

That is what I would say about people who think "it can't happen here" when dealing with the PNAC/BFEE.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

141. Good luck with that........

I'm sure you'll change a lot of minds.

[Spazito]

135. Oh my, the 'entertaining' factor is dissipating?

I do want to thank you for keeping this thread going as more DUers have had the opportunity to read and appreciate the work done by the OP. You have provided a valuable service!

[OneMoreDemocrat]

140. Well.........

everyone (including Rush) needs a good laugh now and again I guess.

[Spazito]

156. Seeing as I don't listen to Rush, whether he laughs, takes drugs

or lies doesn't concern me one iota. Do you listen to Rush? I would not want to assume you are a Rush fan or anything.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

175. You're not going to assume? I'm shocked......

No I don't listen to Rush, but the fact that he checks out the more ridiculous threads like this one and then uses them as an example of how nonsensical the left has become should give one pause as it reflects poorly on all of us, not just the crackpots who believe this shit.

[Spazito]

178. Ahhh, one of those 'be careful what you 'say'...

warnings. Why do you care so much what Rush has to say? If he sends even one person over here who reads the excellent work done by the OP that is fine with me, they might actually learn something other than the 'Rush' version of things.

I always wonder when someone does the 'shhhhh' don't 'speak' of controversial things in case the right wing picks up on it.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

181. Go ahead........

just come out and call me a Freeper.

You know you want to.

Step away from the party line and you're called all manner of things, frankly I'm surprised you didn't do it sooner, since it seems like you ran out of actual factual information hours ago.

[Spazito]

198. You have provided NO factual information at ALL

not ONE link, nothing as opposed to the OP and my links in refutation of your bush (Sr and Jr)administration contention that PNACers served on both.

As to the first comment in your post, it doesn't deserve a response other than 'nice try'.

To get back to the debate, please provide links, any links to refute the position posted by the OP, I would appreciate them.

[Sterling]

197. Dude if give a rats ass what he says you are a fool...

Sorry. No one takes him seriously. In fact fewer people are taking the MSM seriously at all. They expose themselves as the hack they are more and more all the time.

The game is not to please them it is to eliminate them. People are getting their info and opinions from interactive sources more and more. Give up on that pipe dream you have of every looking like something the Rush L's of the world will appreciate.


You might as well stop on this thread. That post doomed you to not be taken seriously. Very few people here are impressed with that kind of defeatism anymore. That is just so 2002.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

228. Really?

No one takes the RW and MSM seriously anymore?

Did you notice who is in the White House? How did that get accomplished without ample help from the media and unfortunately threads like this one.

Defeatism? 2002? Have you just woken up from a long nap? If so, don't go to JohnKerry.com, as you may find yourself a little disappointed.

[Sterling]

232. Really, no one does.

The ratings for those shows are horrible and getting worse all the time while blogs and online news is growing at the expense of the MSM. By all means continue to get your info from Rush, see if I care.

Bush is in the WH for a variety of complicated reasons. The MSM while it does it's best to offer cover is influencing less and less people everyday on the left and the right. The MSM is kind of like you on this thread. Some people are reading the posts but after a while they see you are not credible and turn away.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

246. I would ask you to stop making little barbs inferring that I am........

a Right-Winger.

I simply do not believe as you do that the Bush Administration and it's friends flew planes into buildings in New York and Washington.

The reason I don't believe it is because there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support it.

If you want to talk about being credible, then I suggest you drop this nonsense and read up on who actually attacked us on Sept.11th so that we can all work to change the reality that we are hated in the Middle East and that another attack is likely if we continue to act like we do around the world.

Dismissing the obvious just so you can 'prove' to a tiny, tiny like minded minority that their government was behind the largest and most devastating attack on American soil is not just a waste of time, but a horrible affront to the families who lost loved ones on that day and those who may still lose loved ones when and if we are attacked in the same manner in the future.

[Sterling]

264. I am not inferring you were. I was inferring you give credibility

to those who are understood to be not credible. Don't worry what Rush thinks. The post that started this tangent mentioned Rush as the audience we should concern ourselves with. I think that is just stupid.

[jmowreader]

237. Because this is the first Republican administration since PNAC started?

According to http://www.newamericancentury.org, PNAC was formed in the spring of 1997.

Most of these people (if not all of them) were up to their asses in far-Right politics before they started PNAC, but between 1981 and 1993 they were the party in power so they didn't have to start little clubs like this one.

[Occulus]

117. I can point to three things used in US courts all the time

Motive, means, and opportunity. Not that that means anything.

"Rebuilding America's Defenses", however, is damning. Nearly everything that is going on right now has, since 9/11/01, very convieniently followed their prescribed path, as stated in that document. Not that that means anything; we all know circumstantial evidence can't convict one of murder. /sarcasm

"RAD" mentions Iraq, Iran, and North Korea by name, and I believe in the same order the President publicly used. Not that that means anything, but it does make one wonder.

Look at the language of the suspect sentence:

"The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."

These are not people who are known for their patience. They want what they want, when they want it, and they want it now. And then let's take a look at the world scene: an elective invasion and occupation growing messier by the day; Iran (which has to know it's next on the PNAC list) growing more and more defiant to US demands, and North Korea taking the preemptive step of announcing to the world that it is in posession of nuclear weapons, along with the attendant condemnation of US policies and threats of retaliation.

I'm not saying PNAC wanted all this; in their misguided worldview, they are seen as liberators from oppression. By that measure, they simply don't care what other world leaders think. However, as Americans, and working as they are from within the American system of government, they are bound by law and duty to attend to the wishes of the people of the US.

They do not want to answer to us, and to that end they see a need to manipulate us instead. They feel they can make us support them my making us believe we want what they want, and if they felt they could "get away with" an incident like the 9/11 attacks, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they would at least seriously consider it. The little people, minor (to their minds) economic damage, a few lost soldiers.... they just don't matter.

Am I saying they did MIHOP? No. Am I saying they had the motive, the means, and the opportunity?

Absolutely.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

119. Good post..........

and I don't disagree that these people benefited from the attacks and used them to further their plans to invade Iraq.

Motive, means and opportunity all came to together for Osama bin Laden and he took advantage of it.

[Sterling]

165. Motive, what was it for OBL? Lets talk about that.

Lets see, PNAC had been out. PNACs boy was in office. OBL thought it was good idea to provide the new pearl harbor PNAC needed so we could send even more US military to the ME which after all is his beef with the US. That's some funny stuff you got there.

Come on man use your head here. You have some pretty wacky CT's yourself it seems.

Most likely OBL is in a loose way through his family working with the SA elites and US elites to provide cover for the US propping up the very unpopular and undemocratic SA royal family. He is a straw boogie man. That is my opinion. I know that the idea that the 9-11 attacks would benefit the interests of radical Muslims is absurd.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

177. Close to 4,000 people died on Sept. 11th........

and we lost Billions and Billions of dollars due to the attacks, I'm surprised you missed that as it was in all the papers.

I'd say that was a pretty good score for Osama.

Bush then invaded Afghanistan and Iraq where (by some counts) over 200,000 Muslim were slaughtered, which solidified the hatred of America around the world and thereby helped Osama bring countless more people to his side.

Yet another good score.

How exactly DIDN'T Osama benefit?

Your theory about Osama working with the US elites to 'prop up' the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia is so nonsensical that it makes perfect sense to me now that you are in the MIHOP camp.

[Sterling]

190. Who lost billions and billions?

Tell me who. Everyone in the PNAC circle made money. Do a google on "Put Options 9-11"

Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks
CIA Executive Director “Buzzy” Krongard managed firm that handled “PUT” options on United Airline Stock
by Michael C. Ruppert

FTW - October 9, 2001 – Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency.

Until 1997 A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations.” In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money. Snip

Further more PNAC could give a fuck if Arabs hate us more. That does aid there plans. Having the US military controlling the Mideast is a concrete reality not an ideological or theological concept. It's a hell of a lot easier to keep the US from doing that by NOT having our military permanently based in an ever growing number of ME nations.

Control of the ME resources trumps some America hate bullshit any day any time. If you don't understand that these kinds of Geo political realities are what is driving the policy you did not read PNAC and you don't follow what the PNACers state publicly. The soap opera :they hate us for our freedoms" and the idea that provoking a direct military confrontation with the US helps the Islamics is a PNAC myth, and you seem to be buying it. Shame. YUou will never see through them if you keep drinking their cool aid

[Old and In the Way]

180. Totally agree. There's a flawed assumption about OBL at work here.

One assume's OBL is in fact the radical fundie terrorist that the MSM and this administration postulates.

But we seem to forget that the bin Laden family is tied quite closely to the House of Saud and the House of Bush. There's more than ample evidence that OBL was working with us in the 80's, trying to keep the Russians out of Afghanistan. What if he's always been our asset?

What if he's just the most cynical of fundies? Playing the radical Muslims to deflect their attention from the House of Saud. Look how we've punished OBL and Saudi Arabia since 9/11-

* We've taken out SA's #1 secular (progressive) threat: Saddam Hussin.

* We've exited our military bases in Saudi Arabia.

* We've disrupted the flow of oil from Iraq...making the SA product a lot more valuable on the open market.

* We've provided our sons and daughters as fodder as the new ME lightening rod while the princes in the House of Saud go on their merry way spending our petro-dollars.

It would not surprise me in the least to find out that OBL has been back in SA living large since 9/11. Mission accomplished.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

186. There's no evidence at all that Osama was working for us......

in the '80's. We were both against the Russians for very different reasons, we were not however working together. He didn't like us then, and he doesn't like us now.

Now Saddam is now 'progressive'? Good to know, I must've missed that memo from the Streisand Compound.

We only moved from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, and we did so so that the House of Saud wouldn't have a revolution on their hands, thereby interrupting the flow of oil.

How else would you credibly describe Osama if not as a murdering Islamic terrorist? Freedom fighter? Patriot? Progressive?

[Sterling]

195. There is a very direct link between OBL and our power elite, to this very

day.

That is the important part. All of the Muji's were working with us during the Afghan Soviet war. To think OBL excluded himself in spite of his direct connections to US money elite is not reasonable.

You really need to get up to speed on the documented connections. You need to stop throwing around things as fact that a lot of us know are wrong. It always helps to give a source. It helps you confirm you info before you post it and it serves top verify your opinion. That's how it works. Stay here long enough and you will pick it up.


here you go start here:

Who Is Osama Bin Laden?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

[OneMoreDemocrat]

200. Interesting........

From your 'evidence' I found this:

"Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders". 1

Where does that little footnote lead?

Why here of course:

1 Hugh Davies, International: `Informers' point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers, The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998.

They know this from talking to Informers? Informers? Sounds credible to me, I wonder what kind of deal this particular 'informer' got? Hee Hee, do I really have to read any more? And you take this shit seriously?

[Sterling]

209. It's far more than what you got and by no means the only source.

It is also from a RW publication for what that is worth. That is what we do here. We actually provide sources to credible publications. Try it. It helps you not make an ass of yourself in front of the entire community. Obviously that is not a great concern of yours.

[Old and In the Way]

215. I only found 680,000 references to OBL and CIA when I Googled

the term.

First one that comes up is that famous lefty conspiracy site, MSNBC News:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp

Bin Laden comes home to roost
His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story
By Michael Moran
MSNBC

Yes, in relative terms, Iraq had the most progressive society in the ME in the 1980s. Free healthcare, women's rights, free education. Hard to believe, eh?

The Steisand Compound? What's that? Is that something Rush refers to?

OneMoreDemocrat....riiiiight.

[Sterling]

218. It almost Bush-like? The total disregard for knowledge and facts.

Is this a disease that spread across America during the 80's and 90's or something. This hatred for facts and intellect?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

225. And giving Bin Laden arms means he's working for us?

Hardly.

Saddam's society wasn't progressive, unless you mean the murders and torture of course.

The Streisand Compound is a reference from Morning Sedition, that rabid RW radio network.

I'm surprised it took this long to have one of you question if I was a Democrat...normally, it only takes one or two posts that deviate from the party line before alerts and insults start flying.

Good for you.

[Old and In the Way]

244. Why all the Republican talking points?

"And giving Bin Laden arms means he's working for us?" That's certainly a fact in the 80s. Why is it such a jump to believe that he'd be interested in keeping the Saud Arabian status quo? bin Laden interests and the Bush family coincide quite closely. Fact is, there's a 30 year documented relationship between the Bush's and bin Ladens.


"Saddam's society wasn't progressive, unless you mean the murders and torture of course." I clearly stated Iraq, not "Saddam's society". But you choose to believe the RW talking points. The facts are they were the most progressive country in the ME, up until DS1. If you disagree, please refute with facts.

Finally, a fact! "The Streisand Compound is a reference from Morning Sedition". Thanks, I never listen to the show, so you can understand why I assumed it was a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity reference.

[Sterling]

247. Yes I wonder why some here have more of a problem with other DUers

Than republicans.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

252. In this case I guess it's that some DUers are simply.....

delusional.

[Sterling]

274. Maybe we are?

I doubt it. If I had to trust DUers or Bush the choice is clear. I hope you end up liking this place. It seems like it may not be right for you. By all means keep kicking these threads though, woo hoo!!!!!

[OneMoreDemocrat]

250. Makes sense that you'd want one to believe.......

that Osama was working to keep the Saudi Arabian status quo alive and well, as you and yours seemingly have to rely on more and more giant leaps of faith in order to continue buying this crap.

Osama plainly stated that one of the things he disliked so much was the hypocrisy of the House of Saud, he wanted Saudi Arabia to be much more of a religious state and rejected the fake religiosity of the ruling family.

Iraq, Saddam's society...please, you know exactly what I was talking about and you also no doubt know that nowhere in Iraq could one describe it as progressive.

[Sterling]

277. I don't want anyone to believe anything.

Truth is what we all should be looking for.

"Osama plainly stated that one of the things he disliked so much was the hypocrisy of the House of Saud"
And we all know that people like OBL and Bush always say what they mean when making public pronouncements. :eyes:

Hell the easiest thing for OBL to do is release rhetoric that supports his role. That does seem to be all he does in fact. Play bad cop whenever Bush/PNAC needs a boost, diversion or excuse to further his policy.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

280. You say you are looking for truth........

and then post things like this.

"Hell the easiest thing for OBL to do is release rhetoric that supports his role. That does seem to be all he does in fact. Play bad cop whenever Bush/PNAC needs a boost, diversion or excuse to further his policy."

Please tell me you don't wonder anymore why you are laughed at.

[Sterling]

282. By who? You?

I take that as a compliment. Like I said, I like you better playing for the other team.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

284. What 'team' am I 'playing for'?

You and your 'theory' are sad little jokes and as such you are and will remain nothing more than a curious footnote.

Good luck with your 'research'.

[Sterling]

287. What team?

The Washington Generals of the 9-11 forum of course!!!!

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/wash-generals.htm

[Old and In the Way]

288. This is getting tiresome.

Do you bother to educate yourself or just believe what you hear on TV?

http://countrystudies.us/iraq/45.htm

This social history is confirmed in the efforts of the government to generalize opportunities for basic education throughout the country. Between 1976 and 1986, the number of primary-school students increased 30 percent; female students increased 45 percent, from 35 to 44 percent of the total. The number of primary-school teachers increased 40 percent over this period. At the secondary level, the number of students increased by 46 percent, and the number of female students increased by 55 percent, from 29 to 36 percent of the total. Baghdad, which had about 29 percent of the population, had 26 percent of the primary students, 27 percent of the female primary students, and 32 percent of the secondary students.

Education was provided by the government through a centrally organized school system. In the early 1980s, the system included a six-year primary (or elementary) level known as the first level. The second level, also of six years, consisted of an intermediate-secondary and an intermediate-preparatory, each of three years. Graduates of these schools could enroll in a vocational school, one of the teacher training schools or institutes, or one of the various colleges, universities, or technical institutes.

The number of students enrolled in primary and secondary schools was highest in the central region and lowest in the north, although the enrollment of the northern schools was only slightly lower than that of the south. Before the war, the government had made considerable gains in lessening the extreme concentration of primary and secondary educational facilities in the main cities, notably Baghdad. Vocational education, which had been notoriously inadequate in Iraq, received considerable official attention in the 1980s. The number of students in technical fields has increased threefold since 1977, to over 120,090 in 1986.

The Baath regime also seemed to have made progress since the late 1960s in reducing regional disparities, although they were far from eliminated and no doubt were more severe than statistics would suggest. Baghdad, for example, was the home of most educational facilities above the secondary level, since it was the site not only of Baghdad University, which in the academic year 1983-84 (the most recent year for which statistics were available in early 1988) had 34,555 students, but also of the Foundation of Technical Institutes with 34,277 students, Mustansiriya University with 11,686 students, and the University of Technology with 7,384 students. The universities in Basra, Mosul, and Irbil, taken together, enrolled 26 percent of all students in higher education in the academic year 1983-84.

The number of students seeking to pursue higher education in the 1980s increased dramatically. Accordingly, in the mid-1980s the government made plans to expand Salah ad Din University in Irbil in the north and to establish Ar Rashid University outside Baghdad. The latter was not yet in existence in early 1988 but both were designed ultimately to accommodate 50,000 students. In addition, at the end of December 1987, the government announced plans to create four more universities: one in Tikrit in the central area, one each at Al Kufah and Al Qadisiyah in the south, and one at Al Anbar in the west. Details of these universities were not known.

http://countrystudies.us/iraq/47.htm

WELFARE

Iraq, with its socialist economy, pays considerable attention to welfare. This regard for social benefits has been increased by the war. No statistics were available in early 1988 by which to judge the scope of benefits paid by the government to its servicemen and their families. Nonetheless, journalistic reports indicated that martyrs' benefits--for the families of war dead-- and subsidies for young men who volunteer for service tended to be extremely generous. A family that had lost a son in the fighting could expect to be subsidized for life; in addition, it was likely to receive loans from the state bank on easy terms and gifts of real estate.

Minimal information was available in early 1988 concerning social welfare coverage. The most recent published data was that for 1983, when the government listed 824,560 workers covered by social security. In addition, pensions were paid to retirees and disabled persons as well as compensation to workers for maternity and sick leaves.

http://countrystudies.us/iraq/23.htm

Beginning in 1976, with the Baath firmly in power and after the Kurdish rebellion had been successfully quelled, Saddam Husayn set out to consolidate his position at home by strengthening the economy. He pursued a state-sponsored industrial modernization program that tied an increasing number of Iraqis to the Baath-controlled government. Saddam Husayn's economic policies were largely successful; they led to a wider distribution of wealth, to greater social mobility, to increased access to education and health care, and to the redistribution of land. The quadrupling of oil prices in 1973 and the subsequent oil price rises brought on by the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran greatly enhanced the success of Saddam Husayn's program. The more equitable distribution of income tied to the ruling party many Iraqis who had previously opposed the central government. For the first time in modern Iraqi history, a government--albeit at times a ruthless one, had thus achieved some success in forging a national community out of the country's disparate social elements.

Success on the economic front spurred Saddam Husayn to pursue an ambitious foreign policy aimed at pushing Iraq to the forefront of the Arab world. Between 1975 and 1979, a major plank of Saddam Husayn's bid for power in the region rested on improved relations with Iran, with Saudi Arabia, and with the smaller Gulf shaykhdoms. In 1975 Iraq established diplomatic relations with Sultan Qabus of Oman and extended several loans to him. In 1978 Iraq sharply reversed its support for the Marxist regime in South Yemen. The biggest boost to Saddam Husayn's quest for regional power, however, resulted from Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's signing the Camp David Accords in November 1978.


In no way do I say Saddam was a benevolent ruler....but the country of Iraq did, as a whole, make significant progress in 70's and 80s.

Now....where are your facts to refute?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

296. Then go the.......

fuck to bed.

I won't miss ya'.

[Old and In the Way]

301. Where are your facts?

You challenged me on my remark about Iraqi society and I presented facts. You, again, post....nothing.

You've spent the whole day saying nothing. By all means, keep on with the insults, though. Because nothing supports our case case better than the quality of the content in your posts here.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

304. I think what you mean to say is........

"Nothing supports our Case".

I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find evidence to support the idea that Bush is a compassionate conservative, and Stalin was a loving Grandfather but your 'facts' wouldn't really prove anything now would they?

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm

Real Progressive.

[Sterling]

307. I hear that.

I have deduced some people just act like an ass to get attention. That is what I learned today. I never thought I would see it in such a pathetic context however.

I can't complain. To me the only bad thing would be if people let these threads drop like much of the stuff that gets posted in GD. I honestly wish someone would show up who actually could make a good anti LIHOP MIHOP case. That would probably be the best result of all.

We sure are not getting it from the Washington Generals of the 9-11 forum.

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

[OneMoreDemocrat]

309. Please see post #303, in which you will find..........

a link to the entire 9/11 Commission Report.

When you have read it, I'm sure you'll be able to poke holes in it with facts and thereby prove it to be nothing but lies and PNAC propoganda...if not, then you can go back to acting like an ass to get attention so that your crackpot theory gets more attention.

Good luck.

[Old and In the Way]

317. Same here. OMD's incredibly cogent and well constructed

arguments were impossible to refute. ;-)

I agree, at least in the 9/11 forum, there are posters who can argue the technical merits of the issues. But, interestingly, few of them will tango on the motive or PNAC threads. Because there really is no argument that can be made to negate what we know about this administration's intent on letting 9/11 happen to get their "Pax Americana" underway. So the apologists are reduced to "crackpot theories" and "wacky lefty" name calling.

Perhaps in 2006 enough people will have had it with these criminals to vote Republicans out. If we take back the Congressional majorities in 2006, a real investigation into 9/11 will start setting the record straight.

[Sterling]

185. What are you talking about?

The whole plan is PNAC's Mien Kampf. The pearl Harbor bit is amazing to me.Amazing they had the balls to use it period. It is the kind of mistake hubris will lead you to make. Most of the language is benign unless you actually consider the what the policy they support means.

If all you got out of PNAC was that quote you will never understand this stuff, sorry. You are wasting your time with this stuff. Just keep thinking people who are looking at this stuff are crazy, that will be a lot easier and less time consuming for you.

[Sterling]

164. "concrete evidence" It was shipped off to China, sorry.

Along with the steel, bodies and everything else.

Plenty of paper and verbal info though. Plenty of circumstantial info that is often used to put people to death in this very country.

Plus Bush did everything he could to stop an investigation.

[tx_dem41]

316. Yes, I agree that circumstantial evidence is used to put people to..

...death in this country. I am very active in overturning the death penalty for just THAT reason.

[vincent_vega_lives]

327. Concrete evidence?

Heck at this point I'll take any evidence. AND the lack of evidence to the contrary DOES NOT constitute EVIDENCE.

[Sterling]

131. To me it's simple, they had the plan (PNAC) the means once Bush

was elected. All they needed was the "event" they asked for in their plan (PNAC)and they got it at just the right time.

I am sorry but you have to really not want to see this truth to miss it.

[Spazito]

133. I totally agree with you, that has been my argument with the

't'ain't so' crowd. I keep asking for a credible, researched counter-point to the work done by the OP because they don't seem to be able to produce one. When a credible counter argument cannot be found, I tend to give the original argument more credibility, not less.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

136. You keep forgetting (or ignoring) that the fact that Al Queda.....

knocked down the buildings is the 'original argument', MIHOP is the counter argument and aside from being ridiculous, it is at this point not even close to creditable because it contains no facts, just wild speculation and wishful thinking.


"They said a new Pearl Harbor!!!"
"They said a new Pearl Harbor!!!"


Please.

[Spazito]

153. I guess you missed my post stating I am a LIHOPer not a

MIHOPer, but that's okay, here it is for your perusal:

Spazito (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-13-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #110

121. Agree, I am in the LIHOP camp...


not in the MIHOP one.

Edited to add: and you missed this from my above post I think:

"I tend to give the original argument more credibility"

[gumby]

20. Care to back up your assertion?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

72. Well........

there is nothing for me (and the rest of the reality-based community) to back up or prove....the impetus falls directly on the shoulders of those who are making these insane accusations.


One fact, just one.....come on, you can do it.

[Spazito]

76. LOL, thanks for kicking this thread, it is a very important read,

the OP has done an excellent job of providing links, etc, while others just say 'ain't so' with no back up. I know which post I find more credible, the one with researched links.

[tx_dem41]

78. I agree....the 9/11 Commission Report and Richard Clarke's book

were both very well researched.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

79. Excellent...........

It is indeed interesting, that MIHOPers completely ignore Richard Clarke, because he's just one of those crackpot 'Coincidence Theorists'.

[Sterling]

139. Ignore RC? Not true at all.

He provides key pieces of this puzzle. His personal opinion is not important just the facts he can provide.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

142. Please give me an instance where Richard Clarke's insight........

helps along this nonsense.

[jazzjunkysue]

161. Read Imperial Designs by Gary Dorrien: PNAC asked to attack

Isreal 8 days before 9/11. Instead, they got Al Qaida. Either way, Wolfie had been pressing Bush to invade Iraq, and finally, on 9/12, Bush said yes. They had motive, and means, and their reactions since 9/11 prove they wanted to destabilize the middle east. They had the operatives to let Al Qaida know the coast was clear. The CIA has been demolishing other economies all over the world for decades. Selling a war is tougher, but, they managed it.

If this current mess wasn't in the design, don't you think they'd be doing something to fix it? This is all going exactly as planned. There is no exit strategy. We're building 14 permanent bases in Iraq. That's why everyone who failed to protect the US on 9/11 and before has been promoted. People who tell the truth, like Dan R ather and the head of CNN get fired. Powell resigns. But the original neo-con war mongers rise to the top of the cabinet. They've been rewarded for their conspriacy to unstabilize the middle east. It's all there.

Clinton stopped a bunch of attacks, and tried to get Bush to adopt the policies that worked, but Bush deliberately refuses and attempt to actually stop terrorists. He still does. He didn't want the 9/11 commission because it would expose his plan, and it's doing just that. Then, when he had to relent, he gave them a short time table, no $$, no interview, no access, and loaded the board with his corporate cronies. Every member of the commission has a hand in the dirty dealings, and so will cover up for him. It's all there, everything except your willingness to see what's right in front of you. Endless war. Endless killing. Endless misery.

I’ve read Imperial Designs by Gary Dorrien, and it’s totally backed up with 30 pages of footnotes in very small print. Required reading for PNAC/MIHOP.

According to Dorrien, the first PNAC scratch was itched by Wolfowitz, with Cheney’s supervision, when they penned the “Global Leadership” piece discussed in the NY Times, March 8, 1992 called “US strategy plan calls for insuring no rivals develop, by Patrick Tyler.

There you will have the first whimpers of the NEOCON agenda: World dominance.

It was instantly laughed at, publicly by Edward Kennedy and Senator Alan Cranston, Senator Robert Byrd, Senator Joe Biden. Initially, even Bush said to stifle it. But Cheney wanted desperately to go back to his golden days of flagging the Red menace, Russia, and so never gave up. He suffered many wounds at the hands of moderated, and seems now to be taking revenge. Cheney Rumsfeld, Powell, and Wolfowizt wanted to take out Hussein in Gulf War 1, but it came on too fast for them to make plans. They needed another one to try again. Enter Chalabi. At the 1997 American Enterprise Institute in Beaver Creek Colorado, Ford introduced the gang to each other: Perle, Wolfie, Cheney, Chalabi, and quite alarmingly, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Together, with PNAC, theboys thought up the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

At that point, PNAC consisted of: William Kristol, Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, Elliott Abrams, John R. Bolton, R. Jams Woolsey, Wolfie, Cheney, Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Rumsfeld.

Much of the imperialism was fueled by Wolfie’s friendship with Chilabi, and Chilabi’s embarrassment of Wolfie. Chalabi had been on the CIA payroll after setting up the refugee Iraqi national Congress. Then, when Chilabi was convicted of embezzlement and bank fraud, the US decided to drop Chilabi and the invasion idea. That pissed of Wolfie enough to set the course for our current Iraqi debacle.

So, the current power holders in the 2005 Bush admin are the original founders of PNAC, and their only real agenda: De-stablizing the middle east and taking out Hussein. That allowed them to put in the pipeline and steal the oil. So simple. Covered up by gay-bashing, bible thumping, and personal attacks on democrats who won't play the game.

[Old and In the Way]

167. Excellent analysis!

Why can't the people who support the Official Story give indepth analysis of their position, independent of the facts as promulgated by this criminal administration? Surely, there must be something to disprove this well docmented body of facts that prove motive and intent.

All they seem to have are insults and ridicule.....

[OneMoreDemocrat]

189. If the PNAC asked to attack Israel, then they are a lot.......

more stupid than I originally suspected.

Hardly the group the one would want to hang their hat on when attempting to convince others of this MIHOP nonsense.

[Spazito]

114. I agree, they are great for doing research on this issue!

I look forward to your upcoming posts from those very important assets in disseminating and providing counter-points to the issues raised by the OP. I have NO doubt you are working as diligently as the OP did to provide the counter points!

[tx_dem41]

118. No doubt, I have done my research, by reading those tomes..

cover-to-cover (as well as others). I would hope everyone has. Since I am proposing no theory that contradicts the findings of those reports/books, I see no reason other than to point you to the findings (which I have).

But, since LIHOPers/MIHOPers are proposing findings that fly-in-the-face of those reports, LIHOPers/MIHOPers have the duty to provide concrete evidence.

But, I have given up on expecting any, for whatever reason. Laziness, lack of evidence, intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, ideological blindness, pettiness are a few that come to mind.

[Sterling]

147. Maybe you should cite the parts that back up your argument.

That is the honest and scholarly way to discuss these issues and support your argument.

IMO the 9-11 report ignores too many issues all together to be a definitive finding on the events of 9-11. It had a limited focus and little access to people needed to address the issues discussed here.

It also accepted the information provided by authorities at face value.
It is however very useful in as much is it is akin to an initial statement from a suspect to researchers of a 9-11 cover up.

It gets officials on the record as to what they claim y=their roles in the events of that day were. I think that is why they limited access to Bush and Chaney so much. The less they have to say the better. It gives them more wiggle room.

These people are not as good as many claim they are. They just have too many people willing to refuse to believe they are actually doing what they are doing right in front of us.

If you are still accepting Bush's side of the story as fact before consider alternative I submit you way late in seeing what is happening in our country. If you really want to make your self useful in this fight you need to really get to know your enemy. You give Bush way too much credit.

He said:
"we will not trust the restraint or good will of evil people"
I agree with him.

[Spazito]

150. Please iterate the findings of those reports...

that would refute the position put forward by the OP. If there is laziness to be found, imo, it would be by those who counter with empty rhetoric and without any counter argument except 't'ain't so'.

To say, simply, those 'tomes' are the counter argument without excerpts to show how they refute the OP position is like saying 'a mushroom cloud in 45 minutes' without proof.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. WRONG!..i am a Christian and an MIHOP and remeber the Perle statement.....

PNAC talking about invading Iraq back in 1998 "It will take something like another Pearl Harbor to get the American people behind it" (not verbadum but pretty damn close and when i locate the Perle PNAC quote i will post the link).....if that isn't a MIHOP quote i don't know what is!

ahow fucking convient 911 was for these evil bastards>>>the bushco and the PNACers

from 2002:

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its published aims have, alarmingly, come true. : John Pilger :12 Dec 2002

~~~~~~~~

The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.

One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism. The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.

more.....

[OneMoreDemocrat]

75. "A New Pearl Harbor"............

Clearly that's what they needed to push through their agenda because otherwise they could never have gotten to do what they wanted to do.

We were attacked on Sept. 11th by Islamic Extremists on suicide missions and they got more or less what they wanted....so what?

This means they were behind it?

Again, conjecture and zero proof.

[Jim Sagle]

67. w's regime MIHOP and everybody goddamn well knows it.

Coincidence theory is for bozos.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

71. A minority of wishful-thinking people on DU is hardly.........

"everybody".

There is ZERO proof of anything, just a blinding hatred of the President and his Administration.

It's the 90's again, only this time we're the crackpots.

[Jim Sagle]

151. Here's the deal, omd: We got reams of evidence, you got nuthin'.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

192. Reams of evidence?

Again, where is it?

There has not been a single shred of it in this thread, let alone a ream.

[Sterling]

125. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

An independent investigation into inside involvement would be needed to access definitive proof IMHO. However over time the circumstantial adds up and people have been put to death on circumstantial evidence.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

143. Absolutely......

and once an investigation turns up one shred of evidence of the direct involvement of the Bush Crime Family then MIHOP will gain some credence.

Until then it's a poorly hobbled together joke.

[seemslikeadream]

10. You could add Dov Zakheim to the list of PNACers, he's a Vulcan too!

Grand old profiteering




Yet even Allbaugh is small-time compared to the latest defector to the private sector, Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, who announced two weeks ago that he will be leaving for a partnership at Booz Allen Hamilton, the technology and management strategy giant that is one of the nation's biggest defense contractors. Although Zakheim is not nearly as familiar as Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, or Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, he too has been identified as one of the ultrahawkish "Vulcans" who shaped Bush foreign and military policy from its earliest days. Zakheim has bustled through the revolving doors before, serving as a deputy undersecretary of defense during the Reagan administration, where he worked for Perle before leaving government to join a missile-defense contractor.

At the mammoth Booz Allen firm, Zakheim will join R. James Woolsey, the former director of central intelligence and Perle associate on the Bush Defense Policy Board. These were the defense intellectuals who favored invading Iraq long before Sept. 11 -- and long before any U.N. resolutions on the topic were introduced.
So far Booz Allen has yet to win any major Iraq contracts of its own, although it has shared Pentagon boodle for several years with Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that is by far the biggest contractor out there. (At a recent hearing on Halliburton's scandal-scarred performance in Iraq, Zakheim did his best to defend the vice president's old company. "They're not doing a great job," he shrugged, "but they're not doing a terrible job.")

Booz Allen swiftly jumped on the Baghdad bandwagon last May, when it co-sponsored (with the Republican-connected insurance giant American International Group) a postwar conference on "The Challenges for Business in Rebuilding Iraq" that featured speeches by Woolsey and Undersecretary of Defense Zakheim. (The price of admission for industry executives ranged from $528 to $1,100 a head.) Included was the chance for executives to participate in a "not-for-attribution session that will permit a dynamic, frank exchange of views on the opportunities and challenges businesses will face in post-conflict Iraq."

More recently, Booz Allen was listed as a partner in a controversial $327 million contract to outfit the new Iraqi army. The prime contractor in this murky deal was Nour America Inc., which on closer inspection turned out to be controlled by a close associate of Ahmad Chalabi, the dubious former exile promoted by Perle, Woolsey and their ideological associates as the best possible leader for Iraq after Saddam. Chalabi is a leading member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and enjoys enormous influence inside the Defense Department, which issued the Nour contract. Unfortunately Nour had scant qualifications, if any, for the lucrative contract. After protests from more qualified contractors who had lost out, the contract was withdrawn for rebidding. Meanwhile, Booz Allen denied any role in the Nour affair, aside from a post-bid $50,000 consulting contract.


more
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:iUASMhjvMuIJ:www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/30/profiteers/+Grand+old+profiteering+&hl=en



Zakheim has been a participant on a number of government, corporate, non-profit and charitable boards. His government service includes terms on the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad; the Task Force on Defense Reform (1997); the first Board of Visitors of the Department of Defense Overseas Regional Schools (1998); and the Defense Science Board task force on "The Impact of DoD Acquisition Policies on the Health of the Defense Industry" (2000).

A 1970 graduate of Columbia University with a bachelor's in government, Zakheim also studied at the London School of Economics. He earned his doctorate in economics and politics at St. Antony's College, University of Oxford, where he was graduate fellow in programs of both the National Science Foundation and Columbia College, and then a research fellow. Zakheim has been an adjunct professor at the National War College, Yeshiva University, Columbia University and Trinity College, Hartford, Conn., where he was presidential scholar.

Zakheim has written, lectured and provided media commentary on national defense and foreign policy issues domestically and internationally. He is the author of "Flight of the Lavi: Inside a U.S.-Israeli Crisis" (Brassey's, 1996), "Congress and National Security in the Post-Cold War Era" (The Nixon Center, 1998), "Toward a Fortress Europe?" (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2000), and numerous articles and chapters in books.

Recently reflecting on the sacrifices associated with managing the financing of the nation's war effort, Zakheim said, “Our people need to be constantly on their guard, constantly at the ready, razor sharp, in difficult conditions; we don’t want to make (the mission) one iota more difficult over something that’s easily taken care of … if something bothers our people in uniform, I don’t consider it trivial at all.”

“I look forward to more time with my family, and to an exciting new phase of my life,” said Zakheim, regarding his departure from the Department of Defense, “but I shall indeed miss the pleasure of working closely with my colleagues at DoD, and throughout the government, in the Congress, and in many capitals overseas

http://www.defenselink.mil/

Dov S. Zakheim to Resign from the Department of Defense
March 24, 2004
In this position, Zakheim initiated an enterprise architecture to achieve a vision of simpler budget processes, activity-based costing, and a clean audit by 2007. He oversaw three Department of Defense budgets, each totaling more than $300 billion, and recently proposed a 2005 budget of $401.7 billion. He played a leading role in raising in excess of $13 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, and walked through six wartime supplementals in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He further created the Defense Business Board and worked closely with the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accounting Office on financial management affairs.

“I am proud to have been part of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld's senior Pentagon team for the past three years,” said Zakheim reflecting on his tour. “It has been an exhilarating, albeit extremely demanding experience. Even as we have addressed the many concerns arising out of the War on Terror and Operations Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle and Iraqi Freedom, including winning both military and financial support from the international community for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have also tended to ongoing budget needs to support our forces and defense civilians at home and abroad. We have also made great strides in rectifying the department's antiquated financial management system; we continue to anticipate that DoD will receive clean audits in the not too distant future.”

Regarding Zakheim’s resignation, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “Dov Zakheim has been a cornerstone to the Department of Defense over the past three years. He has been a leader in helping transform the Department to better address the needs of the 21st century. I thank him for his commitment and his counsel. He will be missed.”

Zakheim was sworn in to his current position May 4, 2001. Prior to that, his government service included a number of key positions, to include from 1985 until March 1987, as the deputy under secretary of defense for planning and resources in the office of the under secretary of defense (policy). He also held a variety of other Department of Defense posts from 1981-1985 and served with the National Security and International Affairs Division of the Congressional Budget Office.

During other periods of Zakheim’s career, he served as a senior foreign policy advisor to then-Gov. Bush, during the 2000 presidential campaign. Prior to that, he was the corporate vice president of System Planning Corporation (SPC), a technology, research and analysis firm. He also served as chief executive officer of SPC International Corp., a subsidiary specializing in political, military and economical consulting.

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+story...

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

"The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.

"They have to cover it up," he said. "That's where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can't do the job."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml


Analysis: Defense budget practices probed
Thursday, 02-Oct-2003 10:00AM PDT Story from United Press International
Copyright 2003 by United Press International (via ClariNet)

MIAMI, Oct. 2 (UPI) --

Zakheim said, however, he was limited in his response because of the ongoing audit of the issue, which originally was sparked by a telephone call to the Pentagon's Defense Hotline.


"Our objective will be to review the allegations to the Defense Hotline concerning funds 'parked' at the U.S. Special Operations Command by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)," said a letter from the inspector general's office to Gen. Charles Holland, who has since retired as Special Operations commander.

Among several documents The St. Petersburg Times obtained during its investigation was e-mail sent by Special Operations Command Comptroller Elaine Kingston to colleagues in February 2002.
She said an unidentified official in the Pentagon comptroller's office had asked her if the command could "park" $40 million of research-and-development money in its proposed budget for the 2003 fiscal year.


The programs where the money was placed included missile warning systems on aircraft, infrared equipment on helicopters and radar system. The amounts ranged from $2 million to $5 million.
Kingston said in the e-mail message she coached her colleagues on how to account for the money and avoid attracting congressional attention to it.

"We are doing a favor for the OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) which we hope will benefit the command if we should need additional (research and development funds)," the message said.
Young said at the hearing on President Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan Tuesday that he wants to know if it is a common practice.

Young is clearly not finished and called it "an obvious attempt to keep from Congress what was happening. I think that would make you suspicious. It makes me a little suspicious."

more
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/dp/Uus-defense-young-analysis.RUt1_DO2.html

Thursday 11 March 2004

Rabbi Dov Zakheim's refused to tell journalists the exact reason for his departure on Wednesday. A former adjunct economics professor at New York's Yeshiva University, Rabbi Zakheim has spent more than 30 years working in various jobs at the Pentagon.

But he has also worked in private industry, specifically as a consultant to McDonnell Douglas and Boeing.


Rabbi Dov Zakheim,
Pentagon comptroller and chief financial officer, a conservative Republican who graduated from Jew's College in London in 1973, Zakheim first joined the Department of Defence in 1981 under former president Ronald Reagan.

He was responsible for such tasks as preparing defence planning guidance for nuclear war.

As Pentagon Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer, Rabbi Zakheim's priority has been financial management.
But that does not include additional spending needed to support US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - a sum expected to range from $30 billion to $50 billion.


A General Accounting Office report found Defence inventory systems so lax that the US army lost track of 56 aeroplanes, 32 tanks and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/635B6007-9DD0-436C-BFF6-E6521520B1C7.htm

Dr. Dov S. Zakheim
CEO, Systems Planning Corporation International

Dov S. Zakheim is Corporate Vice President of System Planning Corporation (SPC), a high technology, research, analysis, and manufacturing firm based in Arlington, Virginia. He is also Chief Executive Officer of SPC International Corporation, a subsidiary of SPC that specializes in political, military and economic consulting, and international sales and analysis. In addition, Dr. Zakheim serves as Consultant to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. He is an Adjunct Scholar of the Heritage Foundation, and a Senior Associate of the Center for International and Strategic Studies.

From 1985 until March 1987, Dr. Zakheim was Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Planning and Resources. In that capacity, he played an active role in the Department's system acquisition and strategic planning processes. Dr. Zakheim also guided Department of Defense policy in a number of international economic fora including the US-USSR Commercial Commission; the Caribbean Basin Initiative; and the Canadian-US Free Trade Agreement. He also successfully negotiated numerous arms cooperation agreements with various US allies.


A graduate of Columbia University, New York, where he earned his B.A., Surnma Cum Laude, and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, Dr. Zakheim also studied at the London School of Economics. Dr. Zakheim earned his doctorate in economics and politics at St. Antony's College, University of Oxford, where he was a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellow, a Columbia College Kellett Fellow, and a post-doctoral Research Fellow. He has served as Adjunct Professor at the National War College, Yeshiva University and at Columbia University. He is currently Presidential Scholar and Adjunct Professor at Trinity College, Hartford, CT.

Dr. Zakheim served for two terms as a Presidential appointee to the United States Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad. In 1997 he was appointed by Secretary of Defense Cohen to the Task Force on Defense Reform. In May 1999 Secretary Cohen named him to the first Board of Visitors of the Department of Defense Overseas Regional Schools.

Dr. Zakheim writes, lectures, and provides radio and television commentary on national defense and foreign policy issues both domestically and internationally, including appearances on major US network news telecasts, McNeil-Lehrer Newshour, Larry King Live, BBC Arab and World Service. and Israeli, Swedish, and Japanese television. He is an editorial board member of Israel Affairs and of The Round Table (the Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs), and serves on review panels for the Wilson Center for International Scholars, the United States Institute of Peace, and the U.S. Naval Institute. He is the author of Flight of the Lavi: Inside a US.-Israeli Crisis (Brassey's, 1996), Congress and National Security in the Post Cold War Era (The Nixon Center, 1998), and numerous articles and chapters in books. Dr. Zakheim is also a trustee of the Foreign Policy Research Institute; serves on the Board of Directors of Search for Common Ground, and of Friends of the Jewish Chapel of the United States Naval Academy; and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and other professional organizations. Dr. Zakheim is a member of the advisory boards of the Center for Security Policy, the Initiative for Peace and Cooperation in the Middle East, and the American Jewish Committee

more
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/jointops00/zakheim.html

The CEO of SPC



Dr. Dov Zakheim has been nominated to serve as Under Secretary of Defense and Comptroller. He is presently the CEO of SPC International, and in the past he has served as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Planning and Resources as well as in a variety of Defense Department positions under former President Reagan. He was a member of the Task Force on Defense Reform under then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen and in February of 2000 he was appointed to the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Impact of DoD Acquisition Policies on the Health of the Defense Industry. He has received the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal; the Bronze Palm to the DoD Distinguished Public Service Medal and the CBO Director's Award for Outstanding Service. A New York native, Dr. Zakheim is a graduate of Columbia University and has also studied at the London School of Economics. He received his doctorate degree from St. Anthony's College at Oxford University.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010212-2.html

It was an SPC subsidiary, TRIDATA CORPORATION, that oversaw the investigation after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

------

Four years ago, when Zakheim was on presidential candidate George Bush's foreign policy planning team, he told Haaretz the U.S. did not need to play policeman around the globe, and that American military involvement overseas should be reserved for extreme situations, such as the prevention of genocide.

............

From the time when reports about the Bush administration's intention to go to war started to circulate, critics have charged that Jewish neoconservatives in the Pentagon were responsible for dragging the U.S. into war with Iraq, with the intention of protecting Israeli, not American, interests. Proponents of this claim hail from all parts of the political spectrum, starting with arch-conservative Pat Buchanan, and continuing with two Democrats from Capitol Hill, Congressman Jim Moran (Virginia), and Senator Friz Hollings (South Carolina).

"Pat Buchanan, in my view, is an anti-Semite," said Zakheim. "I'm sorry, but you cannot keep saying what he says, and say he's not an anti-Semite. He is an anti-Semite. I know one when I see one."

..........

Alongside such claims about corruption in Saddam Hussein's regime, Zakheim brings up the issue of terror. Given Saddam Hussein's well-known support for Palestinian suicide bombers, "why is it so hard to believe that he had ties with Al-Qaida," Zakheim wonders. "If you make the connection - Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism - then it definitely becomes a world problem," he concludes.

.........


Israelis who worked with Zakheim are full of praise for his professionalism. Though he always upheld American interests, they say, he had a warm place in his heart for Israel and he did as much as he could to help. For instance, after the start of the intifada, when it became clear that Israel's police force lacked equipment to defuse bombs, Zakheim found funds, and arranged a transfer of $28 million for automatic gear used by sappers. Zakheim is proud of his close relations with many Israelis - recently his son was married in Jerusalem, but at the time, a stepson who went on a photo-shoot in Hebron was beaten by settlers.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/441712.html


Iraq Survey Group
Donald Rumsfeld's al Qaeda

By John Stanton and Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writers


And with the ISG's intelligence fusion operation located in Washington, DC, that means Rumsfeld's hands are dirty. There is also a clear line that can be drawn between the ISG and Undersecretary for Plans and Policy Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans/Office of Northern Gulf Affairs (speculation has been that he is a dual USA-Israeli citizen like Dov Zakheim). Feith reportedly created the disinformation about Iraqi WMD and then Rumsfeld/Cambone allegedly used torture as a tactic to elicit false confessions and exaggerated claims under extreme duress. It is a tactic that SS Commander Heinrich Himmler and Soviet KGB Chief Levrenti Beria practiced so well in Germany and the USSR, respectively. No one claims that the USA and Israel rise to the level of Nazi and Soviet torturers, but, it is too early to say.

Recent evidence offered by General Janis Karpinski, NGO's and investigative reporters, indicates that Israeli interrogators may have been active in Iraqi detention centers. But the Israeli government has stated that any Israelis in Iraq were there on their own. We are inclined to believe them to a point. The problem is that it gives rise to the specter that anti-Arab Israeli xenophobes, including members of the racist and terrorist Kach and Kahane Chai, were participating as either freelance torturers in Iraq or as part of a parallel intelligence operation—separate from Mossad—being run out of Ariel Sharon's office. They, like their American counterparts, make for great recruits. The scary part is that neither government can control them—or, perhaps, does not want to get involved.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/070904Stanton-Madsen/070904stanton-madsen.html

[lady lib]

13. Wow! There's a lot here.

Looks like we have the making of a book. I'm sure some author plans to take this one on in the near future. (Or has it been done already?)

[Shredr]

15. Nominated for "Greatest"

A fantastic in-depth analysis of the frightening PNAC. Every American should know this.

[Beam Me Up]

16. I'll second that.

:kick:

[meppie-meppie not]

323. ditto!

:kick:

[DutchBoy]

17. Shrub:"People who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

Guess he was right on that one (except the 'soon' part).

[clem_c_rock]

18. Good work - Anyone want to grab one point he made and

intelligently debunk it?

And no, PBS documentaries don't count.

[AZCat]

35. What PBS documentary are you referring to?

I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't have a television so I miss out on some things. If you would be kind enough to point me in the direction of a summary of said documentary I would appreciate it.

[clem_c_rock]

69. It's a PBS documentary explaining how the towers fell

And it's cited over an over as conclusive, case closed, evidence of exactly how the towers collapsed due to fires. In reality, there's a ratio of about 10 to 1 experts in the scientific community that dispute the PBS experts claims of how the towers fell due to fires.

Here's a good read by a rather credible authority:

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

73. Giuliani was warned 10-15 minutes before the first tower came down.

How did they know?????

[tx_dem41]

74. Warning about what???.

A lot of my fellow engineers could tell the building had a buckle in it and was on its way down.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

81. Giuliani told Peter Jennings that morning. There is a video that I am

looking for, and will post it when I find it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

83. Right from Giuliani's mouth

http://www.freepressinternational.com/giuliani_911.html

[tx_dem41]

87. Thanks for posting the video/audio.

As I stated in my last post, the 20 or so engineers in my engineering firm knew about 30-40 mins before the collapse occurred, that the tower was coming down. It was very obvious when looking at wide-angle scans of the building. There was a major kink in it due to the impact. It wasn't wild conjecture, just rational thinking.

[Sterling]

221. What is your firm called. My uncle who builds tall buildings was shocked?

He said it looked like a controlled demo but refused to believe it was. He still does but also refuses to try to explain why it looked like it did.

[Old and In the Way]

94. Hmmmm.....the key word "collapse" is truncated.

I'd like to hear a source from the original audio....if this is in fact true, I'd say that's quite suspicious. How would Guiliani get this info, but not the firefighters in the buildings at the time?

So who warned the Mayor?

[tx_dem41]

97. I would imagine any one of thousands of engineers that took

Material Science and Mechanical Engineering in college.

As for why the Fire Dept personnel were not told, I would suspect that it was a communications failure to get the word disseminated.

[Old and In the Way]

109. "Communications failure"

Lot's of that happening on 9/11, no?

[tx_dem41]

111. and in the preceding months beforehand, as we learn everyday.

That doesn't mean a conspiracy (or LIHOP or MIHOP). It means incompetence and/or horribly misplaced priorities.

Unlike the LIHOPers/MIHOPers I don't give the Administration the tremendous credit that they are obsessed in giving them. In fact, I don't give them any credit at all.

[Old and In the Way]

144. Or it could be willful ignoring of the facts.

Who was in a position to drive a reaction to these warnings? This administration. Who didn't do a damn thing? This administration.

Irregardless of the depth of complicity, the bottom line is that they are criminally negligent for allowing this attack to occur. There is more than enough evidence now to warrent an impeachment on this basis alone. Let's have an impeachment and during the discovery phase when this administration has no control on the investigation and lying under oath can be a meaningful criminal act....perhaps then we will learn how much of this act was unfortunate criminal negligence/incompetence and how much of this was an active design to facilitate the war without end.

Don't you find it a little strange that Bush didn't demand hearings to investgate and heads to roll immediately? If it was you or I or about $250MM other Americans, I suspect that we'd be screaming bloody murder, putting the full resources of the government into finding out who did it? Instead, they blame it on 19 hijackers and OBL....case closed. No need to investigate, let's go get those Iraqis. This administration did everything in it's power to slow walk/obstruct an independent inquiry into 9/11. They only capitulated when the public pressure didn't dissolve and they got to set the rules and pick the commission.

It's by their actions after 9/11 as much as anything they did or didn't do before and during 9/11 that convinces me that they have much to hide. An innocent President would have been leading the demands for an independent commission before the dust had settled at the WTC. Wouldn't you think that they'd want to investigate just to make sure that the root cause of the terror attacks had been discovered? How woud they know there weren't more attacks to occur a week or a month later?

[Tinoire]

188. Why was SF Mayor Willie Brown warned not to fly THAT day? & Ashcroft?

The government KNEW. Both Aschroft and Willie Brown were warned not to fly.

The FBI warned Ashcroft not to fly commercial airlines

Ashcroft Flying High

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001

(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

(snip)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml


Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross

Wednesday, September 12, 2001

For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.

The mayor, who was booked to fly to New York yesterday morning from San Francisco International Airport, said the call "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement."

In fact, at the time, he didn't pay it much mind.

"It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."

Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would say only that it came from "my security people at the airport."

(snip)

The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

unfortuntaly for Mayor Brown, there were no airport advisories in place that morning at SFO. Someone called him. It wasn't damn security.

On May 17, 2002, Pacifica Radio reported that Rice was the source of the call to Brown. (snip)

THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS CONDOLEEZZA RICE CALLED A FRIEND THE DAY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11TH AND TOLD HIM TO STAY OUT OF THE AIR THAT WEEK

http://www.marchforjustice.com/8.11.03.Brownwarned.php

[Make7]

68. Sure, why not? I'm just doing this because you asked.

One point from the original post:

Even as plans were being made to remove the Taliban rulers from power, Colin Powell announced a $43 million "gift" to Afghanistan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-09170...
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html

- LunaC
__________

The first link doesn't work. The second link is to a story called How Washington Funded the Taliban. From the article:

"Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters."

Sounds pretty damning - they are supporting the very regime they are planning to remove from power and giving money to the government that they know is harboring Osama Bin Laden!
__________

Of course it would be damning if the money actually did go to the Taliban. (Especially as a reward to the Taliban for its anti-drug policies, as suggested by the article that was linked to in the original post.) But here is what Colin Powell actually said about the "gift" to Afghanistan on May 17, 2001:

"Good morning, everyone. Afghanistan is in crisis. After more than 20 years of war, and now the third year of a devastating draught, the country is on the verge of a widespread famine. Nearly 4 million Afghans are at risk. If the international community does not take immediate action, countless deaths and terrible tragedy are certain to follow.

At the direction of President Bush, I am today announcing a package of $43 million in new humanitarian assistance for the people of Afghanistan, including 65,000 tons of wheat, $5 million in complementary food commodities, and $10 million in other livelihood and food security programs within Afghanistan. We also expect to soon announce additional assistance to Afghan refugees.

Even before this latest commitment, the United States was by far the largest provider of humanitarian assistance for Afghans. Last year, we provided about $114 million in aid. With this new package, our humanitarian assistance to date this year will reach $124 million. This includes over 200,000 tons of wheat.

We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance for Afghans, including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome.

We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. We hope the Taliban will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support for terrorism; their violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, especially their treatment of women and girls; and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement.

UN sanctions against the Taliban are smart sanctions and do not hurt the Afghan people, nor do these sanctions affect the flow of humanitarian assistance for Afghans. America seeks to help the neediest, wherever they may be. I call upon the international community to mobilize and respond generously to help avert this looming humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan.

Secretary General Annan and I have discussed this situation before, and I will ask for his further assistance to raise the international community's awareness about this crisis and to impress upon the international community the necessity to respond with energy and with dispatch.

Colleagues of mine from different parts of the government, as well as including the United States Agency for International Development, will be available to provide more detailed information, should you have questions.

Thank you very much."

Source: http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/2928.htm

__________

Now, I do not dispute that the $43 million was a gift to Afghanistan as stated in the original post, but I felt it was being implied that the money went to the government of Afghanistan. My feeling seemed to be correct, based on the fact that the link went to an article titled: How Washington Funded the Taliban. If the link went to an article titled something like: US Increases Food Aid to Afghanistan by $43 Million, I would not dispute the point.
__________

"PBS documentaries don't count." - clem_c_rock

Why not? I like PBS documentaries. In fact you might find one of them particularly interesting. I don't remember the name of it, but it was about the US war on Afghanistan and it was very informative on how the war was planned and executed. After watching it, it was almost impossible not to conclude that the real objective of the war was to remove the Taliban from power and anything having to do with Al-Qaeda was an afterthought.

:) Make7

[Make7]

322. I should have included this...

also from the original post:

"In September 2001 the "catastrophic and catalyzing" modern-day Pearl Harbor envisioned years earlier by the PNAC came to pass when the WTC and Pentagon were attacked as Rumsfeld sat passive and unresponsive. The finger of blame was pointed at Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative with ties to Afghanistan. Suddenly, the U.S. "gift" of $43 million to the Taliban in May was cast in a new light." - LunaC
__________

So it is stated that the $43 million went to the Taliban, but as pointed out in post #68, that is not correct.
__________

One point debunked, number of PBS documentaries used: zero.

:) Make7

[DistressedAmerican]

19. Thatnks for that summary. Well done.

I love your summary of the PNAC! It is well done indeed.

Personally I do not see however, the evidential ink between PNAC's global imperialist ambitions and the events that occured that day. Just my two cents.

Thanks again. Great addition to the discussion! We should see more like that!

[Spazito]

23. I think this "little" list of PNAC people that are intrinsic to the...

bush administration should give one pause, to say the least!

Bush now had the green light to seamlessly merge members of the PNAC into his Administration with no one the wiser. PNAC members elevated to the Bush hierarchy include, among others:



Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense

Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense

Elliott Abrams - Member of the National Security Council

John Bolton - Undersecretary for Arms Control and InternationalSecurity

Richard Perle - Chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board

Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State

John Bolton - Undersecretary of State for Disarmament

Zalmay Khalilzad - White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition


This goes beyond mere coincidence, imo.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. I am well acquainted with the evil bastards associated

I do take pause. I have a shit load of PNAC docs posted to my site. Including my personal fave the snappy Statement of Principles whose "4 Consequences" section is a bible of neoimperialism:


PNAC Statement of Principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

=====================================
While I take pause I find nothing of evidence for involvement in 9/11. What I see is a group that was in a position to capitalize on events that were set in motion by others.

Now that things ARE in motion, here's the way the'd like to see it. They'd probably take Syria too. I should have included it:

[Spazito]

25. Fair enough, I have seen no concrete evidence that they were...

not involved, either through MIHOP or LIHOP, in 9/11 so I guess we are at a stalemate.

[tx_dem41]

26. Of course its rather intellectually lazy to set your standard

to be "seeing no concrete evidence that they were not involved".

[Spazito]

32. My standard is not that, my comment was solely to point out

there are two sides to every question. One side asks for proof "something did happen" while the other side asks for proof "something didn't happen". The best thing to happen when all sides of the question are addressed is to have the preponderance of evidence on display, examine it and come to a conclusion.

Within what has been presented to date, I lean towards LIHOP and await proof it was not LIHOP.

[tx_dem41]

33. I just await any proof. Haven't seen any yet.

I apologize though for jumping in the middle of your conversation. That wasn't very polite of me. Sorry.

[Sterling]

169. I don't think you want to see proof.

Lots has been offered here and instead of responding to those posts you say you have not seen anything. Do you have everyone in this thread on ignore? Maybe that's why you have not engaged in a whole lot of meaningful discussion, juts blanket denials?

[tx_dem41]

183. No...lots of factoids have been offered here.

They are interesting. They aren't proof.

I hope none of you ever show up on my jury. A half-way decent defense lawyer would play you like a fiddle.

[Sterling]

216. I would not count on that friend.

I have always done very well in court. Maybe one day we will meet up there and you can find out? lol.

So discuss the "factoids" then. Or not. Thx for kicking the thread.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. Fair enough indeed.

Just interested. Been learning a lot today. Maybe we will meet on the same side at some point. If not, I'm sure we all agree that Bush is a fucking miserable failure as a leader!

Fight on!


Even if we can't agree on which ones are the lies, there are clearly plenty to choose from!

[Spazito]

29. Well said!

*

[Sterling]

171. Very respectable attitude.

nt

[LunaC]

34. Maybe you don't WANT to see it.

Based upon the concept of "circumstantial evidence", it boggles my mind that an intelligent being can't see the connections between 911 and the PNAC/Bush" Administration's complicity.


Circumstantial evidence

Evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which have been proven. In some cases, there can be some evidence that can not be proven directly, such as with an eye-witness. And yet that evidence may be essential to prove a case. In these cases, the lawyer will provide the judge or juror with evidence of the circumstances from which a juror or judge can logically deduct, or reasonably infer, the fact that cannot be proven directly; it is proven by the evidence of the circumstances; hence, "circumstantial" evidence.

www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-c.htm

[DistressedAmerican]

37. Frankly, I'd love nothing more than to nail them with such a thing

I am just not convinced. Is that SO wrong?

You are only convinced by what you are convinced by. It has nothing to do with "wanting to believe" anything. You love who you love. You find compelling what you find compelling.

This is not a personal thing with me. I do not have an axe to grind. Why are you so suspicious of that? Why the implication that I am not an intelligent person?

It seems like the wanting it to be one way or the other may be something you may want to take a look in the mirror about. I know it can be frustrating if you REALLY ARE committed to one side or the other.

I think many WANT to see the connections.

[LunaC]

46. How can you deny the connections AREN'T there?

I didn't write this piece starting out with the preconceived notion that the Bush* Admin was connected to 911. I had bits and pieces of information and I suspected that "Something" of note was there but I wasn't sure exactly what it was. It wasn't until I put it all in chronological order that the Big Picture emerged.

The original piece was 20 pages long and - obviously - this condensed version leaves a lot out that only adds to the Big Picture.....

For example: (links available on request)

April 2001 - The Baker energy report that bacame our National Energy Policy specifically targeted Iraq

May 2001 - The Bush Administration opted out of participating in the International Criminal Court that prosecuted war crimes.

June 2001 - A trumped up "energy crisis" in California

August 2001 - The U.S. attempted to keep depleted uranium off the agenda of the UN Sub-Commission on Protection and Promotion of Human Right.


So....we have a group of PNAC/neocons having wet dreams about an Iraq invasion back in 1998. We have these very same people merged into the Bush administration, a phony energy crisis, maneuvering to wiggle out of war crime accusations for using Depleted Uranium in a war that they had planned for YEARS in advance and you honestly believe that the 911 Event was just a lucky break for them to put their plans in motion?

You think 911 was coincidental?

[DistressedAmerican]

51. The facts you list are not in dispute. They did all of those things.

But, Please explain to me how they are somehow proof of complicity in 9/11. Maybe I AM just stupid. Spell it out for me.

Yes, the condidtions did exist for an invasion of Iraq. They were planning an invasion. I firmly believe that their fixation over Iraq was the very reason that they didn't put any resources to dealing with the emerging and growing threat. How does that prove they caused 9/11?

My version fits those facts just as well as yours does. They are basically neutral with regard to evidence of 9/11 complicity. The do not prove or disprove anything other than they intended to do Iraq all along.

It was convenient for them. They exploited it well. And let me add FUCK THEM for it.

[LunaC]

61. What IS your version?

So far you don't offer more than "Naw....they couldn't have done it" which is purely personal coonjecture.

Explain to me how 911 was just "a lucky break" for the PNAC neocons to put their YEARS-in-the-making plans in motion.

Explain to me what justification would have been used to attack the Mideast if 911 hadn't occured?

Explain to me how 911 "conveniently" occured RIGHT ON SCHEDULE as decided at July's G8 meeting

Explain the "coincidence" that Germany and Italy were privy to the original attack plans in May 2001 and that the infamous forged yellowcake documents originated from Italy and the 911 plot was hatched in Germany.

Explain to me why Andreas von Bulow - former German defense minister - also believes the C.I.A. and the U.S. military-industrial complex carried out the 9/11 attacks. {http://www.prisonplanet.com/jones_report.html )

If you're not willing to address EACH of the above queries individually then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

The facts are the facts whether you want to believe them or not. I carefully documented my original piece with CREDIBLE sources so no one could accuse me of making this up. It's time for YOU to document YOUR position if you're expected to be taken seriously. Putting your hands over your ears and loudly saying "La-la-la-la" just doesn't cut it.

[DistressedAmerican]

65. Reread my posts. I have never said they DIDN'T do it.

I said that none of the things you cite are proof of anything other than our intentions to invade Iraq.

The version I subscribe to is well written up in Richard Clarke's book.

As to your demanded explanations:
It was a lucky break because it happened at all and they could exploit it.

WMD WAS used to justify it this is not a what if scenario

It happened when Bin Laden decided to attack. It happened to work with Bushco.

Attack plans for an Iraq invasion were top priority from day one. Sharing them early had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

I can not account for the theories of a randomly selected German official on the issue. I could hand you a long list of officials from all over the worlds that disagree. Relevance?

Now that I have explained these questions, why don't you debunk Clarke? His is a story of tunnel visioned officials that did not believe the warnings that he and others were generating from within the Whitehouse. Is a German defense official more credible than that?

[Swamp Rat]

28. This belongs in the Demopedia

The current entry in the Dempedia on PNAC is sorely lacking. Please submit this. :)

[lies and propaganda]

43. Wow.

Phenomenal job. And i love the phenomenology/propaganda aspect to it. I will definitely be slathering this around Phx, we need it badly here.

[Disturbed]

56. A Du Member did write a book..

about the timeline of 911. He was interviewed on Air America. Damn! I forgot his name. MIHOP and LIHOP will continue on for years until the facts are in. People are working on that and maybe someday we will know but I doubt it.

[seemslikeadream]

57. Are you thinking of Paul Thompson?

Look who's using his book!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x32560

[frylock]

60. paul thompson..

.

I would also recommend Nafeez Ahmed's .

[Kansas Wyatt]

86. Right or 'Reich' Wing Nuts immediately scream "debunked"...

When you bring up Paul Thompson or that time line. Before the election, I posted a link on another board to one of the 9/11 time line sites that showed how Bush never deviated from his schedule for 20 - 25 minutes after he was told that the second plane hit the Towers and we were definitely under attack.

These lunatic nut jobs refused to even consider the possibility that Bush was asleep at the switch and derelict in his duties, and the lunatics immediately went into a feeding frenzied attack to discredit the truth about their demigod Goat boy.

[complain jane]

55. There are a few things that you just can't deny

and while they might not hold up as "proof" of the WH complicity in 9/11 they certainly raise questions at the very least.

PNAC wanted the invasion of Iraq for power and money, to make a complex story short.

PNAC's Project Paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" called for the invasion of Iraq and permanent military bases around the world, for power and money. The paper also said that barring some "Pearl Harbor-like attack" on the United States, this plan would never get off the ground at anything other than an undesirably slow pace.

PNAC tried pushing Bill Clinton into executing their plans. He didn't bite.

PNAC'er Jeb Bush's brother gets magically transformed from idiot drunkard into President of the United States ala Karl Rove.

PNAC members were installed into Bush's cabinet and he's surrounded himself with them and their input.

All of a sudden, the US ignored 52 FAA warnings and other pieces of intelligence forecasting to a fairly accurated degree an attack by al Qaeda was in the making. The like magic, 9/11 happened, providing PNAC with the Pearl Harbor they were needing so badly.

These pieces of shit should be tried for mass murder, not hailed for keeping us safe since then.

[LunaC]

62. Not to forget

That North Korea admitted to a nuclear weapons program since October 2002 but they were largely ignored because the neocons had such a hard-on for Iraq as the crown jewel of its Mideast operations.

[burn the bush]

58. add that our borders are still porous, imports are still not inspected,

no safeguards to prevent terrorist from poisoning our water, or imported food. No great safeguards for our nuclear plants or pipe lines. No...they aren't afraid of a real terrorist attack. That's why so very little has been done to actually safeguard us at home.

[BrklynLiberal]

59. As I watched the second plane hit the WTC from my apartment, my first

thought was "Bush did that!"
MIHOP is slowly oozing from the "tinfoil hat theory" arena into the "Wow! How could I have not seen all this before?!" arena.
I don't know if ALL the truth will ever ocme out, but hopefully enough of the facts will see the light of day to make people realize that the BFEE, the Carlyle Group, Rove, Cheney, et al were intimately involved in the deaths of 3000 people on September 11, 2001.
They knew about what was happening, could have prevented it, and did nothing.
They then went on to use this "new Pearl Harbor" as an excuse to "invade" Iraq, and gain control of "our oil that is under their sand".
They accomplished this with the "collateral" deaths of 1400 additional Americans, the wounding of some 10,000-20,000 Americans, and the deaths of some 100,000-200,000 Iraqis, who did not manage to survive to enjoy the fruits of being "liberated" from Saddam Hussein.
EDIT: They should all be on trial for treason.

[Old and In the Way]

63. Well done Luna_C!

The only way we will ever get the proof is to get the perps under oath. I guess only a full confession will convince some people here. PNAC provides the plan and the motive. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor event. Unfortunately, we have a rubber stamping Republican majority in Congress that refuse to have an objective investigation not controlled by those who are the chief suspects in the crime of this century.

Personally, I think you should add a paragraph on Cheney's Secret Energy meetings because that's where the active planning of Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) was developed. Coincidently, the same SCOTUS that put these guys in office are the same ones who won't allow the minutes and attendees of those meetings to be opened to the public. I wonder why?


3000 Americans died on 9/11 - No accountability and no justice. What's the threshold to have a real investigation? 30,000 dead Americans? 300,000 dead Americans? I won't be surprised when the next attack occurs because the same people who were running things on 9/11 are still in charge now.

[LunaC]

130. Cheney's energy task force

Excellent suggestion to include this -Thanks! I had written about this previously......

December 2000 - Wasting no time, Cheney secretly assembled an advisory panel of oil and gas executives from Enron, Dynergy, Shell Oil, Chevron/Texaco and British Petroleum under the direction of James Baker (former Secretary of State under George Bush Sr.) to help shape our national energy policy and justify the PNAC's anticipated war with Iraq.

Contributing substantially to the task force discussions and recommendations was a shadowy group of unidentified observers who still remain unknown. Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister, also made a contribution to the group's final report which was funded through Khalid Al-Turki (a Saudi Arabian oil and gas enterprise) and the Arthur Ross Foundation (a non-profit organization that - on the surface - appears to be a supporter of the Arts.)

http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm

MARCH 2001 - Cheney closely guarded the details surrounding his energy task force but documents released through the Freedom of Information Act reveal a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

As one internet poster pointed out:

"The Iraq map is not a map, it's a plan

"There are several areas marked 'earmarked for production sharing' (look at the map
legend), which means privatized oil fields. Iraq did not have privatized oil fields and
production sharing agreements before the US took it over.

"There are also parcels marked on the Iraq oil field and exploration map (numbered
'Block 1' through '9'). Iraq did not have an active, privatized oil exploration program
going on before it was conquered by the US.

"If you read the footnotes and entire contents of the other documents, there is a heavy
emphasis on business concerns, such as contracts and vendors over items one might
think would be more important in a government discussion, such as capacity, long term
reserves, etc...

"One footnote (in UAEOilProj.pdf) even contains investment advice for the participants
at the meeting, suggesting opportunities in downstream projects, such as power
desalination and pipeline projects.

"These are not 'just maps'. Read them."

It can be argued that the spoils of war were being doled out two years before Iraq once again became a household word. Perhaps this explains why Cheney worked so hard and so long to keep this information suppressed until Iraq was under U.S. military control...by then it would be too late for the public to object to the invasion.

Iraq, circa March 2001, painted a completely different picture than the Evil Empire the Bush Administrations tried to portray in their determined rush to war.

"Iraq was one of the more progressive Islamic countries in the region. It provided full
rights for women and public education for its citizens who enjoyed a decent standard
of living."

"Despite the years of bombings and the even greater toll on human life taken by the
sanctions, visitors to Baghdad don't see a city in ruins. Much of the wreckage has
been cleared away, much has been repaired.

"In our hotel, there's running water throughout the day, hot water in the morning.
Various streets in Baghdad are lined with little stores, surprisingly well-stocked with
household appliances, hardware goods, furniture, and clothes (much of which has a
second-hand look).

"We see no derelicts or homeless people on the streets, no prostitutes or ragged
bands of abandoned children, though there are occasional youngsters eager to
shine shoes or solicit spare change. But even they seem to be well-fed and decently
clothed. ......large swaths of the city used to be shrouded in complete darkness;
today, there are lights just about everywhere

"People used to feel hopelessly isolated and now there seems to be more hope and
better morale

Sadly though, "more and more children are turning up with leukemia" (a result of
the tons of depleted uranium the U.S. military used and left behind after Gulf War I.)

"The Iraqi leadership could turn US policy completely around by uttering just two
magic words: "free market." All they have to do is invite the International Monetary
Fund and World Bank into Iraq, eliminate free education and free medical care,
abolish the minimal food ration that goes to every Iraqi, abolish the housing
transportation subsidies, and hand over the country's oil industry to the corporate
cartels. To lift the sanctions, Iraq must surrender to the tender mercies of the
free-market paradise....

"Until then, Iraq will continue to be designated a "rogue nation" by those policy
makers in Washington who themselves are the meanest profit-driven, power-mongering
rogues on earth."

http://www.towardfreedom.com/2001/mar01/iraq.htm

The issue of trade sanctions against Iraq put the Bush Administration in a bind - the sanctions had been designed to punish Saddam for not conceding to U.S. demands but it ended up handicapping U.S. corporations and undermining the PNAC's drive for U.S. economic supremacy. The Bush Administration was on a tight four year schedule to oust Saddam and launch the PNAC's Grand Plan for World Domination but they still didn't have a viable script to sell to the public. Yet.

[frictionlessO]

64. DU has a PNAC/Neocon agenda group!!

In case any of you missed it. LunaC provided a link to it above, here it is again.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=307

Its brand new and we need people from all viewpoints to contribute over there... help us not reinvent the wheel, give us your research, ideas, and theories... but mostly give the group some of your time.

Most of us agree that PNAC signers and neocons (and yes I'm well aware that there are a few "dems" in that grouping as well) are the dangerous extremist radicals who have taken this world on a path aimed right at.... well take your own "dark vision of the future" pick.

We might not agree on everything but lets work together on this and help bring them down by information warfare. If we unmask this evil junta and spread this knowledge far and wide... it could really really help.

Remember that despite our differences our goal is always one and the same, bring down this disgusting farce of Pax Americana. All other issues (except for election fraud and all it entails) are secondary to this because the entire future of true "freedom and liberty" not just here but for the whole world, hinges on whether or not we are succesful in the next few short years.

just my opinion....

[Tinoire]

66. Excellent. Totally excellent! A BIG THANK YOU!

:thumbsup:

[Desertrose]

84. LunaC this is great work.....thank you!

More & more people (not on DU) are connecting the dots and coming up with if not MIHOP then at teh very least LIHOP.


It seems so clear what is going on...I wish the rest of the US would wake up....
anyhow...thanks!!!! This is definitely a keeper thread :)

DR

[Joe the Revelator]

88. Its threads like these that make me sad to a democrat....

a party that i thought i was never be ashamed of. Don't you guys see what you're doing? We're supposed to be the rational ones here, and this MIHOP non-sense makes us look, sound, and act like idiots. I mean, if you want to support a conspiracy theory at least support one, like LIHOP that makes SOME sense.


Some of you represent the wacky wing of the democratic party

[Desertrose]

92. and some of you represent the ostrich wing of the "democratic party"

There is nothing WACKY about presenting evidence but there sure is something wacky about those who choose to ignore it.

[Joe the Revelator]

96. There is no real evidence in this thread....

just a bunch of very loose strings that one poster named lunaC (that should tell you something) says proves MIHOP. Then once the wacky wing jumps on board, its full steam ahead to irrelevance.

[Spazito]

99. Wow, no back up but a slam at the OP

It amazes me when anyone thinks insults add to one's credibility instead of providing a researched counter argument.

[Sterling]

100. Trust me there is much more than one posters work...

To support both MIHOP/LIHOP. I think it speaks very highly of DU that this information is discussed here rationally and in some cases some of this information was found by DUers.

Take a step back, think of the people we are dealing with, what they have done pre 9-11 and since. Try to be objective.

like Bush said "we will not trust the restraint or good will of evil people"

Don't use faith to keep you from seeing who these people really are.

[tx_dem41]

102. I am looking at it objectively.

If I was looking at it in a biased, subjective manner, I would take a set of disparate factoids (as posted in the OP), and try to tie them together into some sort of overarching conspiracy. But, I'm not going to do that. That wouldn't be thinking objectively.

[Desertrose]

103. no real evidence? seriously??

There is as much if not more on this post than all the LIES the MSM told us after 9/11 that so much of the public swallowed.

LunaC is no doubt referring to what passes for "reality" these days....especially among those who fearfully cling to what they have been fed by TPTB & MSM and seem unable to look at the evidence. Personally, I think the name is damn clever & appropriate.

wacky wing?? you appear to have a thing for labeling things and that tells ME something.

[Joe the Revelator]

297. lol, i can only count on this to happen if you don't tow the "crazy" line

"you appear to have a thing for labeling things and that tells ME something."

what EXACTLY does that tell you?

[Old and In the Way]

104. Sorta like being 'a little pregnant'

"I mean, if you want to support a conspiracy theory at least support one, like LIHOP that makes SOME sense."

So you belong to the little wacky wing of the democratic party, right?

MIHOP, LIHOP...it matters not to me. I'd be happy to impeach and try them on gross criminal incompetence. Let's get an independent prosecutor and let's get an objective investigation/evaluation into the facts of 9/11 that is not run and controlled by those that are suspects in the crime.

[bpilgrim]

113. think how we feel a bout losing our VOTE

no one fighting for INVESTIGATIONS

and being called names when we do it OURSELVES.

sad indeed.

peace

[bpilgrim]

95. EXCELLENT POST!

nominated for the front page :bounce:

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[AngryAmish]

101. Bohemian Grove

It all gets back to Bohemian Grove.

[LSdemocrat]

105. This clearly is the case for LIHOP, but MIHOP?

What exactly is your definition of MIHOP?

I see plenty of evidence showing that Bush let Bin Laden do whatever he wanted, but I don't really see anything that shows that Bush and PNAC made 9/11 happen.

[Old and In the Way]

106. LIHOP and MIHOP are merely the degree of criminal involvment.

It's the "happened on purpose" part that really matters, IMHO.

[LSdemocrat]

110. True, but LIHOP is far more believable for persuasion purposes

In a matter as important as this, we shouldn't overstate our case. If you told the average person that Bush made 9/11 happen on purpose, he/she would probably think you are insane, but if you told them that Bush let it happen to get an excuse to invade Iraq, then that will get people thinking.

[Spazito]

121. Agree, I am in the LIHOP camp...

not in the MIHOP one.

[Sterling]

132. Actually LIHOP is less likely the more you know about the subject.

They really could not count on their supposed enemy to provide the attack just on schedule for the PNAC crusade. That is just for starts.

LIHOP is bad enough IMHO but if you keep looking you find it only gets worse.

[Hissyspit]

107. INVOLVED or COMPLICIT or INCOMPETENT or NEGLIGENT almost beside the point

I've posted this before. I'm posting it again, cuz this is such a popular post. Sorry if you've read it and I hope it doesn't sound self-serving, but I think my experience is very telling. I'm not MIHOP, I'm fairly much LIHOP, but I make a main point about that at the end of this post.

On Aug. 11, 2001, I was at the World Trade Center. It was Sunday and it was a drizzly day. My girlfriend and I were there to try and get Broadway tickets. The lines were very long. She kept going out onto the plaza to smoke. Outside, while looking at the now-destroyed 1993 memorial, I said to her: "I don't understand why people don't think they will try to do it again. They won't use truck bombs again because it didn't work the first time." I was very frustrated with American complacency and escapism and had often lectured about it to my students. I looked up at the buildings and imagined missiles and airplanes hitting it, and how the buildings would damage everything below. We did not go up to eat at Windows on the World because she felt uneasy about the elevators and the crowd. I still have the umbrella I bought at the mall beneath the WTC (as well as a copy of the "Sexy New York City 2001," but that's none of your business).
This was the weekend after the Friday of the infamous PDB: "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S."

I was ON VACATION. I teach ART HISTORY. I'm not the National Security Advisor. I saw it coming; how the f**k did our elected leaders NOT?? Or why did they refuse to?

INVOLVED or COMPLICIT or INCOMPETENT or NEGLIGENT is almost beside the point (almost). MIHOP or LIHOP. Why are these people still in power?

Again, I hope this doesn't come across as self-serving. It's not like I saved anyone's life or anything. But to have Condoleeza Rice say "No one could have seen this coming" or "No one could have predicted this" - MY National Security Advisor, who is now Secretary of State - is NOT O.K. That Bush says "If I had known terrorists planned to crash airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I would have done anything in my power to stop it," and then gets reelected is NOT O.K.

[SheepBootHero]

138. Who made these statements?

"There are countries to plunder and fortunes to be made. You have it, we want it. Do as we say or suffer the consequences."

"The U.S. already has a powerful military but we plan to nurture and grow it until it's massive and we are indominable. Resistance is futile. We are......."

Is there a link to these quotes and who in the pnac group made these inflammatory remarks?

[Old and In the Way]

152. Where did you get these quotes from? It's not in the OP.

Welcome aboard.

[Sterling]

154. I think those were comments on the double speak in the PNAC doc.

He just says it in plain English that Amurikans can get. It's a pretty good summery IMHO.

[Tinoire]

174. That's just an accurate summary of their philosophy and statements

Stick around and start reading all you can about PNAC and their "carpet of gold vs carpet of bombs" (Afghanistan & the Taliban).

Search out a poster named Stephanie. Stephanie can point you to the right PNAC archives so you can quickly catch up.

Welcome to DU btw.

[LunaC]

255. There aren't any qotes around those statements

Reread the OP and you'll see this atatement:

Their philosophy can be simply summarized:

It's my SUMMARY, and NOT quotes.

[bush_is_wacko]

145. Got it. Scary as hell, but I'm curious just how they think the process of

strengthening troops is going? It seems to me as if American's aren't rushing to the recruitment offices in large numbers. Iraqi's aren't being trained quickly enough to gain numbers and the insurgents seem to be targeting those forces so as to make them unable to actually BUILD their number's. There are very few coalition troops participating and I don't think any other countries are likely to offer up their troops any time soon for any foreseeable reason bushCo can come up with.

As far as I can tell, this is goal #1 and without it's success THIS movement is NOT going to be successful. I also think if bushCo attempts to DRAFT our children for a war on N. Korea or Iran at least half of American's will REVOLT!

Do you think there are enough American's in this country willing to send their children off to die in a war for oil that bushCo won't eventually need to do something along the lines of a draft?

I just heard the Air force Academy registrations have decreased by somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% or more. I'd say that is SUBSTANTIAL and pretty indicative of where American's including long-time military family American's stand on bushCo's war on terror. If military families were supporting bushCo the way he says they are those registration numbers would have double or tripled by now, don't you think?

[Sterling]

149. American's aren't rushing to the recruitment offices in large numbers

They were at first. Before the Iraq war many DUers were blind to what Bush was about. It was the LIHOP/MIHOP people that called that one and pretty much every thing that has happened since on one level or another.

The point is the lie did not take the way they had hoped. Enough people see how much of a farce Iraq is. It is already to the level of opposition we had after being in NAM longer. It will get way worse if they try to follow through on the next steps in there plan. That is why I really want to see people wake up to what is going on.

Some people are still focusing on the mundane political puppet show they perform on CNN etc... That shit is NOT reality.

[bush_is_wacko]

173. Very true, and I really do think the world is waking up, not just America

Without a doubt it is occurring at an astounding pace if you look at history. I do believe that ALL the political shenanigans need to be watched though. bushCo has been setting up the system to make it very difficult for our Congress to read an entire proposed bill before they are required to vote on it. He could slip any number of very radical political moves into one of those bills. I think the movement is big enough at this point to give attention to MOST areas but I am always worried something is going to slip by us that will be devastating.

I'm EXTREMELY concerned with the implications of PNAC like organizations apparent push for the Euro! I think the implications of that are clear and I think there are a few Dem's that support that policy as well. I think Bill Clinton actually supports it from the indications I am seeing.

You are absolutely justified to worry about the global implications. that is what bushCo is all about!

[Spazito]

238. I just want to thank you, LunaC, for all your hard work in putting

this together. Even though it has been moved off GD, it was read far and wide as well as having been circulated to many. It is excellent work.

There are those who will be happy it was moved and, imo, worked very hard to cause that to happen but the work on discovering more on PNAC and what really happened on 9/11 will go on, thanks to people like you who are able to put such excellent research product forward. Thank you again!

[Sterling]

245. It it was a truly great post!!!!!!

thx.

[LunaC]

259. It's been added to Demopedia

with the pertinent info on Cheney's energy task force included.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/PNAC_101

[Spazito]

285. Awesome!

Well done!

[Old and In the Way]

318. Happy to hear it!

I'll be refering to your summary in future discussions. Glad you added the energy task force aspect....I think it really is pertinent to the continuity of the timeline between PNAC and 9/11.

Oh, and sorry for the no-value added sidebar discussions that were posted on here today. But anyone reading the entire thread will see how little the opposition can say to refute your conclusions.

[neverenoughtinfoil]

320. I'm LIHOP or HIHOP-My 2 main problems with MIHOP

1. MIHOP seems to assume a flat-earth view of geopolitics and such-that is, it seems to assume that their aren't groups outside of the USA that have their own objectives, that might really be pissed of at us and/or fanatical enough to try something like 9/11. It assumes that there is no "blowback".

2. If MIHOP, why not do something simpler like plant a nuke-it would have more than enough desired effect. No having to gum-up the air defenses, thwart investigations and such. Am I wrong on this?

[Democrat Dragon]

321. to answer you questions..

1. This does not dismiss that the PNACers are the type to be fantical enough to do this kind of thing. There is the possibility that that there is communication between them snd outside groups. Keep in mind that OBL does have close ties the BFEE. If planes really did get hijacked, that does not rule out the posibility that OBL could have tricked a group of exremists into sacrificing their lives for *.

2. Keep in mind that 9/11 was something that was played over and over for weeks. It was grusome event where you could see a lot of carnage going on such as people jumping out of windows, the smoke, fire, and bulding collapse. In a nuclear bomb, yes it would be freaky, but you cannot see the carnage until after it happens, not during. It was also decribed as something out of a movie, because it was very creative and unexpected.

[Old and In the Way]

324. If AQ really wanted to hurt the US-

Why not pick a nuke plant downwind of NYC and crash planes into them? Maybe one plane doesn't kill it, but the 2nd plane would have. Now that would have really crippled the US.

Instead they pick highly visual, highly symbolic targets that don't have long term physical effects on this country.

If they wanted to really hurt this country, they picked the wrong targets....why is that?