Why don't we hear, "Sept 11 happened on Bush's watch"?

[CoffeeCat]

The fact remains, that George Bush did not keep us safe. We had the worst terrorist attack on
our soil--on George Bush's watch.

This is the elephant in the living room that no one dares to discuss. In fact, when you consider that
August 2001 PDB in which this administration was told that bin Laden planned to use airliners to strike
buildings inside the United States, this is the neon green and pink polka dotted elephant in the living
room that no one mentions.

I'm just wondering why no Democrat has come out and made the point that Bush did not keep us safe and he
failed to prevent Sept 11.

The Republicans have opened the door wide open for this comment to be lobbed through it. How many times have
they accused the Democrats of being terror wimps or of making the country less safe? They've even gone so
far--as to say that Al Queda wants Democrats to win because they're softer on national security--and that a vote
for a Democrat means an increased chance of a terrorist attack.

So, why hasn't any Democrat ever shot back and pointed out the obvious--that Bush failed to keep us safe and Sept
11th happened during his tenure?

[Echo In Light]

1. Oh, it "happened" on that admin's "watch" alright

[lame54]

2. because he wasn't "watching"

[TahitiNut]

34. Anyone in the military, asleep on watch, would be promptly court-martialed.

Cheney/Bush consistently behaved in criminal ways.

[HughBeaumont]

3. Not only on his watch, but with his foreknowledge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5715113&mesg_id=5716564

Warned by 11 nations no less than 40 times. Which makes the fail all that more EPIC.

[Echo In Light]

4. A required, sought after "success" per the PNAC blueprint

[HopeHoops]

5. PNAC prefers the term "catalyst".

It was exactly what they had in their plan as the trigger point for invading Iran. Afghanistan was just a necessary diversion on the path to their real objective. The really frightening part is PNAC has never really tried to HIDE their intentions!

[JohnnyBoots]

8. The Unocal pipeline in Afganistan was a nice side effect for them as well.

[Stephanie]

55. The Enron pipeline as well

Enron might have been saved if they could save the Dahol plant with a pipeline through Afghanistan.

[Echo In Light]

11. "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

[Stephanie]

56. More on PNAC, compiled by all of DU >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=80

[Echo In Light]

59. Thanks! There's another forum I'm aware of that has a lot of complied PNAC info on display

I guess the real question is, was the last ten yrs the doing of a neoconservative think tank, or are 'big' decisions made from without, and those interests used those beholden to that think tank, being on the same page, to implement the country's 'new' direction?

[bottomtheweaver]

6. Because they saw what happened to one who did:

[defendandprotect]

15. Targeting their enemies works well for people who are willing,

in the end, to use violence.

I just wish we'd study what it is the NRA does that makes them so successful in

getting their way and see if we can adapt any of it... ???

On the other hand, a lot of political violence has gone down -- MIHOP -- and

assassinations and we've never even had acknowledgment of that!!!

[bottomtheweaver]

29. Yes and the list of targets who have lost their lives or careers

is depressingly long.

[midnight]

24. What is Stephanie's last name? I have not heard about her in a while?

She always seemed to be saying the most important things. Wasn't she the first to start talking impeachment for bush?

[bottomtheweaver]

28. She ran for president on the Green party ticket,

so it wasn't possible to endorse her here, but it's Cynthia McKinney in the picture, and she held a series of 911 hearings in July 2005 when she was still an Atlanta Dem representative:

McKinney reopens 9/11
Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta's leading newspaper), July 23, 2005

Rep. Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "What we are doing is asking the unanswered questions of the 9/11 families," McKinney, a DeKalb County Democrat...said during the proceedings. The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report on the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack — claims participants said the commission ignored. "Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian," panelist Melvin Goodman, a former CIA official, said. "And I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom.".

http://www.wanttoknow.info/a-mckinney-reopens-911

[JohnnyBoots]

7. Why don't we hear that they were warned repeatedly, then went on vacation for a month in August -

Then 9/11 happens. Seems criminally negligent to me.

[defendandprotect]

37. Even the United Nations came to warn the White House in AUGUST . . .

and all of our intelligence agencies

because they were so concerned about Bush's "Operation Ignore."

In fact, the Russians had gone to the UN to ask for help because Bush was

ignoring the intelligence they were passing on to WH and intelligence agencies!!!!

"How could they not have known?"

[JohnnyBoots]

40. Yeah, really makes you wonder whether it was incompetence or willfull ignorance. The latter

is criminal, I'd say. Wonder if anything will come of it within the next 5 to 10 years. If people in power will actually have the balls to investigate, publicize and do something about it.

[spanone]

9. cause teevee pundits don't care about truth

[Enrique]

10. "Bush kept us safe for 7 years!"

I actually just heard a republican say this.

[malaise]

12. Because gawd told him to

destroy those evil Muslims. Isn't that what he told Chirac!
M$Greedia cannot question gawd!!

[defendandprotect]

13. If that was acknowledged, we might actually have to ask, "How could they not have known?" ....

And then you get into a lot of question about worldwide intelligence flying in

for months and months -- and even in August, the United Nations Security Council

sending representatives to the White House and our intelligence agencies to WARN

then -- that was AUGUST--!!!

Then, again, maybe they think they could hurt the feelings of TORTURERS...???!!!!

[Ezlivin]

14. Or the "Anthrax Attacks" happened AFTER 9/11 and on his "watch"

Republicans would like for us to forget about these highly suspicious attacks that targeted key lawmakers who were in opposition to the Patriot Act.

And Bush certainly didn't stop the Muslim sniper from doing his work, either.

Kept us safe. What a hoot!

[Echo In Light]

18. That only those who opposed the Patriot Act were targeted is merely "coincidence."

:sarcasm:

Guess those darn ol tearusts sure knew who was un-Amurikan!

[chimpymustgo]

21. Cheney overseeing "war games" with NORAD on 9/11. COINCIDENCE!!!

:sarcasm:

The list is too long for words...or continued denial.

[Echo In Light]

25. Yes, all sorts of kooky things that ALWAYS favor certain people, and their aims, are bound to occur

Quackies

[defendandprotect]

45. Anthrax also looks like inside job to shut down Congress immediately

after 9/11 --

Sniper also looks like a distraction . ..

Bushco should be in prison!

[progressoid]

16. Christ, you libruls are sooo dense,

It happened at the beginning of his watch which is like the end of Clinton's watch. AND he was hampered by all the bad intel and poor support from agencies that Clinton had ruined. AND Clinton shoulda got Bin Laden when he had the chance.

Er...something like that. I forget how it goes exactly. Let me go ask the freeps how to rationalize it.

[indepat]

46. Damned librul media! And what else would have given junior his oh-so-needed "trifecta?"

:P

[defendandprotect]

47. Clarke makes clear they didn't want to hear anything about "terraism" . . .

That was also true of Ashcroft -- !!!

The entire world of intelligence was knocking on WH door and doors of our
intelligence agencies --

and that included the United Nations Security Council in AUGUST --
the Russians had come to them with their intelligence very concerned about
Bush's "Operation Ignore" ...

They ignored it because they were pushing to have it go off -- PNAC joy!

However, people ignorant of all of that -- who absolutely trust their leaders and
don't want to question anything or hear anything -- are dense.

[jimlup]

17. I think the dems made a strategic mistake not saying this...

Because it is absolutely true and his administration is absolutely culpable. They weren't watching. And they had been warned strongly by the outgoing Clinton administration.

Instead they were trying to push through a pie in the sky program called "missile defense". Gee, that really helped a lot.

Turn it around for a second and ask if the republicans would have made the same strategic decision to not blame the sitting opposition party president? If 9/11 had happened under Clinton it would be accepted mainstream propaganda that he was "asleep at the wheel".

I admit that I waffle between LIHOP and MIHOP. Sometimes my intuition insists that Darth Cheney was part of the MIHOP process and he has managed to carefully conceal all the leads. They worked very hard to conceal the LIHOP part of things and actually LIHOP is treason so let's have a real investigation instead of the whitewash Bush appointed commission that the American people settled for.

[unblock]

19. yeah, carter got HAMMERED for the iran hostage thing because it happened on his watch

he ordered a military rescue, and the military botched that without ever getting anywhere close to iran.

that always seemed suspicious to me, the military botches a mission when a democrat is in office and they can't possibly make a second attempt? carter was obviously willing to try, so i have to think that he met resistance and/or sabotage in the military, and that's why there was never a second attempt.

in any event, if we assume the public story of all events, this could just as likely have happened under reagan or ford, but it happened under carter and they hung it around his neck like an albatross.

oh, right, it never would have happened under reagan because he would have secretly armed them talked tough enough to scare them into surrendering without a fight.

[Raster]

23. I'll say it. Certain "factions" in the military sabotaged the rescue attempt.

The controllers of those same factions also "encouraged" the Iranians holding American captives to hold them just a bit longer...say, long enough to influence an American presidential election.

"Morning in America..."

[Echo In Light]

26. "Oct Surprise!"

[jimlup]

43. I agree...

I recall the name Oliver North was highly positioned in this particular debacle.

[defendandprotect]

49. "October Surprise" is something not much of the public seems to know about . . . !!!

I remember that Ted Koppel --- among others -- found it too much to
deny and pretty much brought it right to Reagan/Bush/Dulles doorstep --
but stopped there. I was surprised at even that because Koppel had
been doing the right-wing's dirty work every night with the hostage
days count.

This also mimicked Nixon's work to keep the North Vietnames from attending
the peace meetings set up when LBJ stopped the bombing during the election
period. Evidently, he was promising them a better deal when he became
president.

I'd also question the results of the Humphrey/Nixon election . . .

[defendandprotect]

48. Help! Either I've forgotten ...

or I'm unaware of what you're saying here . .. re "miliary botched" . . .

I do know that his hostage rescues were probably sabotaged -- always seemed
peculiar -- but then I found out that Ollie North and Secord were in charge of
the missions and that the helicopters oddly enough were NOT equipped with the
addition of equipment to keep sand out of the engines -- though they were on a
mission in the desert!!

I don't recall all the circumstances surrounding the Embassy takeover --
wasn't he telling US personnel to leave and some didn't . . .
I'm really kinda fuzzy on that surrounding period?

I can also look it up, of course . . . but wondering what you're saying?

[unblock]

50. yes, i'm thinking of the helicopters and the sand thing

i don't recall if north and secord were involved, they weren't household names at that point. but i do recall the oddity of the u.s. military not being able to figure out how to properly launch a helo in the desert. i believe one or more helos were destroyed in the process and they called off the mission.

i remember thinking, is our military really THAT incompetent? 444 days and they can only attempt one rescue and they completely botch that without even making it into the country??

the embassy takeover itself i have no reason to think involved anyone on the inside, it seemed to be a bit of a surprise. i think there was a warning for all non-essential people to leave the country, but i don't know if the state department officially called the embassy personel home. the subsequent negotiations, though, particularly the idea that bush and his cronies sabotaged the carter negotiations and cut their own deal to drag it out until reagan was in office, certainly carries some weight with me.

[defendandprotect]

52. Only read about Ollie North being head of that mission. . .

in probably the last year or so . . .

My memory says three helicopters down . . . but I think last time I discussed this
here someone else said only two. Whatever, it tototally wrecked two attempts.
Also helping to make Carter look like an idiot.

Yes . .. I am convinced of the "October Surprise" --

[lib_wit_it]

20. Because Democrats are have no fucking backbone. Losers. They won and they're still losers.

[Echo In Light]

27. No, the supposed "lack" of backbone is on par with, say, Bush's "incompetency"

It's institutional collusion, not cowardice. From the Establishment's POV, it's much better/safer for the populace to imagine their elected reps as being cowardly and dumb instead of being evil fucking war criminals who routinely make decisions that result in scores of suffering and/or slaughtered.

That's why the M$M uses those type of phony "criticisms."

[lib_wit_it]

32. I'm not sure I get your point. Surely Cheyney and quite a few other Bushmen are

evil, greedy, unethical, hypocritical criminals of both the war and the civil persuasion.

I don't, however, agree that it's beyond debate as to whether the Democrats in Congress are cowards--that is, afraid of losing their jobs, or, as you claim, immobilized by institutional collusion (and isn't being "scared" to rebel against the collusive forces cowardice?)

I wish you'd explain a little more in depth what you're trying to say. It quite possible that we agree more than disagree.

[Echo In Light]

42. Divide and rule. Every govt's primary enemy is its own population

"America has one political party with two right-wings."
~ Gore Vidal

The two (one) party system prevents the free flow of a wide variety of ideas from evolving within the public mind, namely those that threaten the preferred Profits Over People ideal, and establishes a very narrow framework of "differing" viewpoints that strategically favor centralized power, and in the case of the U.S., its lucrative National $ecurity State ruse - our reps all get contributions from the "defense" industry.

If the ownership class/ruling class can get the populace to focus on two 'different' puppets, each beholden to various social differences ("necessary illusions") especially volatile ones, be they legit or manufactured, then the Few Big in power (war party) don't have to worry about their positions of power/affluence being challenged in any substantive way since the mass will waste their time fighting among themselves rather than banning together and fighting their true enemy. And forget about ever 'throwing the bums out' via the voting booth: it's a rigged game. This is likewise why you'll see no actual justice/accountability re any number of crimes, war crimes and assorted atrocities of the Bush/Cheney admin

[CoffeeCat]

41. I agree it's collusion...certain Dems don't fool me...

Our elected officials are educated, elites with money, power, and impressive family lines.

The vast majority of our Senators and Congress members rose up through the ranks--due to their
importance and access to power and money.

We're actually supposed to believe that once they get into elected office, that they morph into
namby-pamby jellyfish who just let themselves be bullied by the Republicans. Bullshit.

They're all on the same side---playing different roles that distract the US citizens from paying
attention to the real crimes that are being committed.

[spanone]

30. why come to DEMOCRATIC underground?

[lib_wit_it]

31. So, you're saying "Love it or Leave it"? I love the supposed ideals of the Dems, I'm just fed up

with our elected representatives failing to stand up for them.

[bertman]

22. Harry the Reed aka He Who Bends With The Political Winds won't mention it because it

might make him look like a librul.

Recommend this thread.

Also, Lib_wit_it nailed it.

[lib_wit_it]

33. Harry Reid is a weasel.

Also, thanks.

[defendandprotect]

38. Someone from Nevada here recently referred to him as a Republican . . .

[lib_wit_it]

39. Ha, yeah. Republican, weasel--six of one...

[lib_wit_it]

35. Olberman and Maddow say it. Too bad so many millions of the right's money go towards

convincing the masses of how perennially right the right is.

[rschop]

36. KEEP US SAFE: FAR FROM IT!

Kept us safe? Bush not only did not keep us safe but his own agencies in fact did exactly just the opposite.

This complete story on 9/11 is now summarized on the web, google the key word, "eventson911". You will find almost all of the source documents that back up this account, documents taken from the US governments own websites and sources.

All of the source materials on this site are now publically available. It turns out there was more than enough information on the internet to put the complete story of 9/11 back together again, it just took some time and effort.

The source materials on this web site comes from the following locations:

The Account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, taken from the New Yorker July 17, 2006 issue, the former FBI Agent now testifying in front of congress this week on torture, the Department Of Justice Inspector General’s Report on the performance of the FBI prior to 9/11, the material entered into the trail of Moussaoui and the testimony given to the US DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002 by Sherry Sabol the attorney FBI Agent Dina Corsi consulted prior to taking the investigation of Mihdhar away from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, testimony found on page 538 of the 9/11 Commission report.

The material from the Moussaoui trial came from the web site located at:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... /

This is the government web site to hold all of the evidence items entered into that Moussaoui trial.

NOTE be prepared to be completely stunned by the material on just this one site!

The account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan comes from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, Ali Soufan’s assistant on the Cole bombing investigation, and was given to author Lawrence Wright and vetted by John Miller information officer at the FBI prior to being published in the New Yorker and the book Looming Tower which won a Pulitzer prize in 2007, and can be considered the official account of the FBI prior to that attacks on 9/11.

A complete summary of what had occurred prior to the attacks on 9/11 is also available so anyone can see what had occurred prior to 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to take place. The CIA and even FBI HQ had the names of three of the al Qaeda terrorists for over 21 months and deliberately hid this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators. This information was in fact kept hidden from the FBI criminal investigators by the CIA even after Walid Bin Attash, known to be one of the masterminds of the Cole bombing, was identified on January 4, 2001 in a photograph taken at the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, the exact same meeting attended by Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, and knew at that point that all three had planned the Cole bombing at this meeting. What they did not know was that these terrorists had also been planning the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers at this very same meeting, in fact this meeting had originally been set up to plan the attacks that later took place on 9/11.

The CIA and FBI HQ even kept this information secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators after August 22, 2001, when the CIA and FBI HQ Agents found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were found to be inside of the US, and many people at both agencies knew they were in the US in order to take part in horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack that would kill thousands of Americans. See “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, in particular the July 23, 2001 email he sent back to his managers at the CIA where he said that Khalid al-Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack, an attack that by this date the CIA and FBI HQ knew was going to take place inside of the US. This is also Evidence Item # 939 found on; http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... /.


The CIA and the FBI HQ agents working with the CIA "even knew” that their actions to block FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team from investigating and starting a search for Mihdhar and Hazmi, would likely result in the deaths thousands of Americans who would perish in these attacks.

The documents that are the proof of this along with the analysis to connect all of the dots together are located right on this site, and is summarized at the bottom of this web site.

[leveymg]

58. Most of this was made public in September 2002 during the Joint Intelligence Committee hearings

We've known that they knew six years ago. The only people who don't are the vast majority of the American people who don't read Congressional reports because the corporate media refused to cover the story with any care or precision for fear of straying from the accepted narrative.

That would have disturbed the dominant political myth that "nobody could have imagined four aitliners used as missiles." Bush was their guy, and the corporate media did what they had to protect him. Simple as that. Yes, they kept America safe - they kept Bush safe from the consequences of his criminal negligence (at least). The MSM still won't touch this story.

[steelmania75]

44. Because some morons believe Clinton was still getting briefed at that time

[sipping radicchio]

51. I would never, ever utter the words 'fail to keep us safe' about any president

I don't believe that there is a way (well, beyond scrambling fighter jets from a base 10 minutes away from you, I should add) to make us safe. Bombing for safety? Naw. Call me cynical, but I don't think that's gonna do it.

Oh, and because they always say that Clinton had the Cole attack and the first WTC attack, yada yada...

One interesting little tidbit: doesn't anyone ever question why there would be a report entitled: "Bid Laden Plans Attack On America." :rofl:
I will never forget Condi "testifying" and trotting out that folder with that ludicrous title. Egads...

[KeepItReal]

53. I guess you didn't hear Gov. Jesse Ventura last week.

He aint a (D) but he said in broad daylight on TV.

[Fuzz]

54. Control of the language

[Canuckistanian]

57. One of the great unanswered questions of our time

What was it, 63 warnings they received prior to 9/11?

And Bushco's main response? Attacking a country that was proven to have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

Brilliant. Fucking briliant.

[raccoon]

60. Kick. I'd rec this if it wasn't too late. nt

[upi402]

61. me too, so just a kick for us