Do you think TreasonGate

[babsbunny]

could somehow lead to a 911 cover-up by this Administration?

[bryant69]

1. No

But i don't buy LIHOP/MIHOP either, so I'm not sure what sort of 911 cover up you are talking about.

But the two issues are pretty far apart even if LIHOP/MIHOP happened - and the connecting figures (Rove, Bolten, the President) aren't going to talk.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[babsbunny]

3. This cover-up............

www.reopen911.org

[wli]

5. it's so disheartening to "debate" with them

They've swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The scientific analysis is there and thoroughly contradicts and completely debunks the 9/11 Commission's whitewash, but even without all that you need do little more than watch the footage and believe your own eyes.

Whatever kind of mass hysteria is going on that has people believing the whitewash garbage is near-inexplicable. Even "Big Lie" theories don't predict people disbelieving their own eyes.

In any event, when these neofascist frauds are prosecuted and voted out of office they can then be put on trial for their horrendous crime against humanity, and hopefully all will then be revealed.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. LOL, here's one that I wrote

in the 9-11 Forum about Flight 93.

It speaks to the 'Big Lie' that you bring up.

I feel like that lady in those old commericals, "Where's the Beef?" "Where's the Plane?"

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. Oops, it would have helped

if I had posted the link that I was referring to.

Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=43001

[janedoe]

30. Hunt the Boeing!

This French site said it so well. http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

You found the official version lacking in something (like a Boeing, for example):

> If you begin to question whether a Boeing really did crash on the Pentagon then, no doubt, you'll be wondering what happened to the aircraft that disappeared. You will probably ask yourself why the US government even told you this story in the first place and you'll start asking yourself lots of other questions besides. Don't worry! This is perfectly normal!

(What does that say when folks outside of our country know more about what's going on in our country than we do!)

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. If you don't believe in LIHOP

then can you explain to me the 'odd' behavior of every top administration official on 9-11? Not a single one reacted appropriately. Every single one sat on their hands for as long as possible until the Pentagon was hit. Yet they all knew the attack was in progress as soon as the first plane hit the WTC if not sooner.

Why did Paul Wolfowitz say that when they heard about the attack on the WTC, him and Rummie decided there was nothing they could do about it and went on with their meeting. Can you explain that one to me?

[bryant69]

11. These sorts of conversations never go anywhere

That's far from the best evidence in your quiver though. People acting strange during a crisis is pretty consistant.

Bryant

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. It's not so much that they acted strangely

They didn't act at all and I believe it was on purpose.

All four planes were supposed to be first flights out that AM. Those planes have the best on time record for obvious reasons. When Flight 93 got delayed a monkey wrench got thrown into the plans and at that point the leadership went into stall mode. They had to wait until at least the Pentagon was hit, to get their Pearl Harbor event. That is why the rest of the government couldn't respond to the attack in a significant way. The head of the snake decided to go into a coma and refused to wake up until it was over. Bush was never supposed have gotten stuck with his pants down reading "My Pet Goat". But fortunately, things don't always go according to the plan.

BTW: I have copies of all of their original statements that were reported in the press and I can back up my allegations.

[StrafingMoose]

13. Yes, acting strange is normal...

but when 2,700 people die from it, usually you'd expect heads rolling and people convicted of criminal negligence.

The 9-11 Commission explicitly said it's mandate wasn't to blame anyone, in other words - accountability wasn't their business.

"It is not our purpose to assign blame. As we said at the outset, we look back so that we can look forward. Our goal is to prevent future attacks"

[janedoe]

27. Could someone tell me

what dows LIHOP/MIHOP mean?
I have asked this several times without a response.

Thanks, ahead of time, for relieving my cluelessness. :-)

[pox americana]

29. LIHOP/MIHOP

mean "let it happen on purpose" and "make it happen on purpose" :)

[janedoe]

31. ahhhh.....

relief! THANKS!

[janedoe]

28. What about the DSM (Downing Street Minutes)?

I think 911 is directly linked to the Iraq-war scandal.

Recall the most repeated phrase of the DSM. http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

So, if Bush rationalized sending the US into war by "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," and we've learned the WMD part was fake, shouldn't we wonder if the "terrorism" part could be fake, as well?

[mwb970]

2. Ultimately, it's all one story.

The Plame story is the thread which, when pulled, will unravel the whole sweater! Yes - 9/11 is part of it, but so is Iraq, Bolton, Halliburton, and all the rest.

Pass the popcorn, please.

[petgoat]

36. It's All One Story.

9/11 justified Iraq and the abrogation of constitutional rights and
a military budget nearly as big as the rest of the world combined.

The stolen election of 2000 connects too in that the extreme negligence
of the Bush administration that resulted in 9/11 would not have occurred
under Gore and 9/11 intervened just when the fact that Gore got more
votes in Florida was about to be revealed.

The stolen election of 2004 connects because Bush's perceived status as
"tough on terror" was the core issue of his support, and only by
maintaining power can his junta continue the 9/11 coverup.

Everything is connected to everything else. And now we have to wonder
why did al Qaeda mount a bombing campaign to coincide with the votes
on the extension of the USAPatriot Act? What was in it for them?
Bush must be right--they really DO hate our freedom! (Sarcasm)

[wli]

4. it certainly does

However, it will be whitewashed along with anything else "too unsavory" to inform the public about.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

26. Something just dawned on me. Fitzgerald was appointed US Attorney

in Chicago on September 1, 2001. One of his earlier assignments was to prosecute Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden. I wonder if he was close to John O'Neill who worked out of Chicago, and perhaps he himself is looking into possible connections regarding Brewster-Jennings and their work?

[xchrom]

6. you might think so.

but this admin is unlike any other admin we've ever dealt with.
their ties run extremely deep -- and their ability to control damage seems always to be helped by our own side.

i agree with the poster who said it's very much part of the whole picture -- 9/11, iraq, haliburton, etc -- but i believe also that therre corporate interests at work outside of the admin help control damage to them.

i honestly fear for the future of our country -- i think the past years are simply an indication of the future.

[wli]

9. that's why we must stand up for full disclosure once freedom's restored

We may (hopefully) be able to get Democrats into office, but once we do, we can't rest. We have to get to the bottom of this and uproot the whole fascism machine once we regain some kind of foothold.

But if we can't do these very first things, we are far beyond doomed.

[radfringe]

10. may not be related to 9-11

but with this mis-administration who knows...

it certainly calls into question the reasons for invading Iraq as "mispoken" by bush* - and this may result in people asking what else did bush* "mispeak" about?

one thing is becoming clearer is bush* and GOPer's refusal to take responsibility and to be held accountable. Bush* Inc. have blamed everyone else for the mess they've created

Whether or not we get the to the truth is going to depend on the 2006 mid-term (s)elections. As long as GOPers are in control of the House and Senate there will be no digging out from under the bush*t.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. Possibly. Plame's front company was infiltrating itself into a Saudi

Oil Company, looking for WMD and terrorist ties within Saudi Arabia. One of the people involved in this Saudi company is Khalid Bin Maufouz who is suspected of financing 9/11. Mahfouz is one of Osama's brother-in-laws. Not only that, he goes way back with *. When *'s first oil partner Salem Bin Laden (Osama's brother) died in a mysterious airplane accident in Texas, Bin Mahfouz inherited all of his holdings, including a share in Arbusto.

[dbeach]

15. those mysterious plane crashes

seem to have increased since 1963???

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. lol! BTW...didn't Bin Laden's father meet the same end? n/t

[dbeach]

18. from eating to much free food at carlyle conferences

seriously glad ta laffed..


uncle bin laden was at carliars conference on 9/11/01 in DC and GHWBush whom I call Poppy O was at that conference ..maybe on 9/10/01..but poppy o was there..

AMAZING CONCIDENCES!!!!

and people think that ain't suspicious.

OH !PLEASE!!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. Just as it is a coincidence that on the same day of the failed London

bombings, the Patriot Act was passed by the House.......right. Why isn't anyone talking about this????

[dbeach]

21. cuz its a concidence..

and the cons just keep a comin.. and the busheviks move to the next crime...we remain a step behind these criminals and our sleeping fellow citizens and of course the disinfo agents keep the criminals going...

Nobody asks questions if they all in on the action..??

what is next distraction.??.its a series of distractions to keep us fooled about 9/11 whether it was their failure in preventing 9/11 or their agenda..?

either way..what are they hiding?

why does the topic keep cahnging??

[janedoe]

32. Exactly! London Bombings = anthrax (but easier to clean up)

Here's my bigest question:

If it's so important to keep us "safe," why isn't there any provision in the PATRIOT ACT to punish incompetence? (e.g. "Stand-down orders?")

We are told that there were many significant "intelligence failures" that led to the outcome of 911. If there had not been such "intelligence failures," then we wouldn't have had a problem! We'd have been "safe." Umm... Isn't that the objective? Wouldn't reprimands be more appropriate and more effective (not to mention more logical), than removing our civil liberties?
Isn't this a no-brainer?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

37. As I understand, there is nothing in the Patriot Act that would have

protected us. Anyway, I beleive that 9/11 was in the least that they LIHOP and at the worst that it was that they MIHOP, so the Patriot Act is both cases would have had no bearing whatsoever to the outcome.


It will be interesting to see what is conjurred on the eve or day of the Senate vote.

Why can't people open their eyes and see the deadly manipulation?

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. Helicopter crash

in Texas I believe.

No wonder Osama is pissed at Bush. Bush's daddy probably did kill his daddy.

[StrafingMoose]

16. My take is...

This is another piece of the Patriot Act thrown in by Rove that he couldn't add in 2001-2002 because it was too offensive for journalism.

1) He leaks a CIA officer's name to the public
2) He KNOWS it WILL get public
3) He KNOWS journalists will try to protect their "anonymous source"
4) Court will order the sources to be disclosed since the "sources" commited a crime.
5) Then people start throwing in their "solution" to the problem to prevent "horrendous crimes" like this to be commited by BANNING "anonymous sources".

Voila.

Could be many other things too...

[dbeach]

20. Logical!!

all is suspect..whether it appears positive or negative for the elites..

Money and their entrenchment as the status quo are the only constants so far..

[StrafingMoose]

22. and I forgot to conclude...

that by banning anonymous sources, you prevent alot of whistleblower cases to break out!

[dbeach]

23. confuse the comoners..scare em..

rob their wallets..start wars...profit from each step..

I don't know what the big mystery is about?

the elites are passing all these laws from Patsy act to Real ID to protect them and their wealth from the commoners..

fool the masses is their great joy

name me a beneficial law that has helped the middle class since 2000???

[janedoe]

33. I think you've got that right!

It makes as much sense as having the Patriot Act strip our civil liberties instead of reprimanding or firing those who responded to 911 with "incompetence."

There's a theme, here. Clearly the US had the correct intelligence information. Joe Wilson made sure of it.
Sibel Edmonds also knows that the FBI had plenty of warning about 911 that they deliberately didn't want to use (or even pretend to look at).

So, why do we need the PATRIOT ACT?
Having credible information was not the problem on 911!

Let's play the mainstream media (MSM) game and pretend it happened just as the official story says said it did. What is different, now? The same incompetent people are still there. Ahh... but they've been promoted.

I think the Joe Wilson story shows that the Bush

[StrafingMoose]

34. Exactly...

Without those who leaked WF199i ("get off Al Qeada!") signed by Bush and without Edmonds, Rowley, Phoenix Memo, etc the charges of pre-warnings (at least LIHOP) would be alot less substanciated.

Barring journalists from running stories with anonymous sources will prevent ALL those leaks, soooo convenient eh?

[petgoat]

35. Use of anonymous sources

"The trend has been toward less anonymous sourcing.... A survey of 419
newsroom leaders in early June by the Associated Press Managing Editors
found that 103 respondents -- nearly one in four of those polled -- said
they never allow anonymous sources in their publications, with most of
them from smaller or mid-sized papers....

"Nearly all of the nation's major newspapers and news services have
either rewritten their policies on sourcing, or at least reminded
journalists of their existence -- and those on the beat say the message
is clear: Back off!....

"USA Today put its new policy in place a year ago and created the
position of standards editor, who tracks the use of such sources.
Editor Ken Paulson implemented the policy shortly after taking over
the paper from former editor Karen Jurgensen, who resigned in April
2004 due to the Jack Kelley scandal. Paulson claims the crackdown
reduced anonymous sourcing by 75%."

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/departments/newsroom/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000987803

[StrafingMoose]

38. Thanks!

By the last sentence could also be read as:

"Paulson claims the crackdown will reduce covering of whistleblower lawsuits by 75%." :P