9/11

There have always been terrorists. The American Revolutionary War patriots were some. The Puerto-Rican FALN tried to assassinate Harry S Truman. Middle Eastern groups have had us under constant assault. But never has any administration been so ineffectual in protecting us from it, nor so cravenly tried to use it for partisan political gain, as the Bush League has done.

Postby harper pine » Mon Sep 01, 2003 7:22 pm

Pinequakes, I read that article and thought all his points seemed accurate, according to things I've read elsewhere It's a good article—I would have posted it if you hadn't.

I've found the Information Clearinghouse to be a really good source. Usually they have taken their articles from other well-known sources. I know what you mean when a story just pops up on a website that you're not sure of, though.

One thing I hadn't heard before was that someone from the CIA had profited from the stock deals. It seems inconceivable that the "selling short" business hasn't been looked into by law enforcement, but what else is new?

Concerning number 17, I read the other day that it was Condoleeza Rice who called Willie Brown. I'll see if I can find the link. Apparently he said it on Pacifica Radio, but when I looked up Pacifica Radio for that date I couldn't find anything about it. But it certainly seems like something else that should be followed up.
harper pine
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:21 pm

Postby Pinequakes » Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:06 pm

From one pine to another, thanks - for the information. Yes indeed, someone should look into this stuff, very, very carefully. There should be a complete investigation into the Bush coverup of 9/11.
User avatar
Pinequakes
voter
voter
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:23 pm

Postby harper pine » Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:38 pm

I never thought I'd live to see the day when I thought there should be several special prosecutors at work to uncover all the dirty dealings of this administration.
harper pine
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:21 pm

Postby Ferguson Foont » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:22 am

In theory -- in <I>theory,</I> mind you -- we should not need ANY special prosecutors to deal with the blatant illegalities of this administration. Regular U.S. Attorneys should -- in theory -- be adequate to the task. Bush administration corruption is so open, so clear, so well-documented, that it should be a trivial matter to secure indictments and convictions.

But this theory is predicated on at least SOME U.S. Attorneys being at least marginally ethical. This is where the theoretical and the real diverge, because ALL of the U.S. Attorneys and their bosses are Bush appointees.
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."
User avatar
Ferguson Foont
Sovereign
Sovereign
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

Postby harper pine » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:02 am

So how does it happen? Who has to make a move?
harper pine
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:21 pm

[b]It was always just a matter of time[/b]

Postby Whosyer » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:18 am

We all heard complaints from Police and Fire rescue workers in the months following 9-11 complaining about air quality and health concerns over disturbing symptoms seen by many of the workers during the clean-up.

What gets me is that nobody would have blamed Bush for something like this... it's just enlightening at what lengths this White House will go to stop any and all negative information. But disturbing at what little regard they have for anyone who isn't in their economic class... talk about waging class warfare??
"Now there are some who would like to re-write history... Revisionist Historians is what I like to call them." ...George Walker Bush
Whosyer
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:54 pm
Location: West Central Florida

Postby harper pine » Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:25 am

For 9/11 from Mark Fiore:

http://sfgate.com/columnists/fiore/
harper pine
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:21 pm

Postby Ferguson Foont » Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:29 am

Now THAT was hilarious.
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."
User avatar
Ferguson Foont
Sovereign
Sovereign
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

Postby harper pine » Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:37 am

It's great, isn't it!
harper pine
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:21 pm

Postby David Campo » Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:36 am

Yup...classic!
David Campo
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 1:44 am

Postby harper pine » Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:14 pm

This is a good piece.

Who let Saudis flee after 9/11?

By Jeffrey J. Connaughton, 9/30/2003
Boston.com

CIVIL LIBERTIES in an age of terrorism require a careful balance between preserving important rights cherished by all Americans and the need for law enforcement to investigate and prevent terrorist attacks. The importance of a balanced standard is particularly evident in President Bush's request to Congress for additional law-enforcement powers to investigate terrorist suspects while questions persist about why the White House and FBI permitted 140 Saudis (including two-dozen relatives of Osama bin Laden) to leave hurriedly from the United States for Saudi Arabia.

In the days immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, while the airways were still closed to all other flights, Americans couldn't fly into the country but relatives of bin Laden were able to fly out. The Justice Department and the FBI inspector general should investigate why these obvious "persons of interest" were permitted to leave the country without being seriously interrogated.

Why should the American people trust the Bush administration with greater police powers when it refuses to answer questions about the bin Laden family's escape? As Senator Charles Schumer of New York has said, it was too soon after 9/11 for the FBI even to know what questions to ask, much less to decide conclusively that each Saudi and bin Laden relative deserved an "all clear," never to be available for questions again.

The American people deserve answers to these questions:

Whom did the Saudis call to request government approval of the flights?

Who in the government coordinated approval of the flights?

Did the FBI receive any communications from the White House about the urgency of permitting these individuals to leave the country?

Did any Justice Department or FBI officials express reservations or objections to the decisions?

Did any Americans contact the US government to urge approval of the flights?


In stark contrast to the special treatment given to these Saudis, President Bush and the Justice Department have repeatedly challenged Congress and the federal courts to permit law enforcement maximum leeway in moving against terrorism suspects. In the aftermath of the attacks, hundreds of Arabs were jailed for months without access to counsel. The Justice Department has asserted that not even the federal courts can tell it that American citizens have a right to counsel or to compel witnesses under the Constitution if they have been deemed unilaterally to be "enemy combatants."

Attorney General John Ashcroft has had to defend himself from the left and the right against charges the Justice Department has implemented the Patriot Act abusively. Most recently, Bush called on Congress to allow administrative subpoenas without judicial approval, block bail for terrorism suspects, and expand the federal death penalty to convicted terrorists.

FBI officials say that agents had interviewed the bin Laden relatives before the White House cleared them to leave the country. But Dale Watson, the former head of counter-terrorism at the FBI, has said the departing Saudis "were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations."

Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that the flights were "coordinated within the government" but has offered no details about the FBI's involvement. For his part, Vice President Cheney claimed no knowledge of the flights, "but a lot of folks from that part of the world left in the aftermath of 9/11 because they were worried about public reaction here in the United States or that somehow they might be discriminated against."

This double standard flies in the face of common sense. If the post-9/11 Saudi flights had happened during President Clinton's term in office, Republicans and Democrats alike would have been outraged and undoubtedly would have called for congressional investigations. Some Republicans would have done all they could to charge Clinton with treason.

The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, have changed this country, and we need to provide law enforcement with the support and tools it needs to combat terrorism effectively. But two years of silence by the Bush administration on the Saudi flights is enough.

Congress should refuse to consider whether to grant the administration with greater police powers until the Justice Department agrees to conduct a searching investigation of the circumstances surrounding government approval of the bin Laden family departure.

Jeffrey J. Connaughton was special assistant to the counsel to the president 1994-95.


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... 11?mode=PF
harper pine
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:21 pm

Postby Josiah Bartlett » Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:11 am

Thursday October 16, 8:55 AM
Clinton says he warned Bush of bin Laden threat

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced, Clinton said on Wednesday
.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/031016/3/1625q.html

So what else did bush* know. It's time to renew the chant that bush* knew.

Did Clinton also warn that the California energy markets would disintegrate into chaos if FERC released its control and removed price caps?
I too represent the Democratic side of the Democratic Party.
Josiah Bartlett
Congressman
Congressman
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:14 am
Location: The Great Corrupt State of Florida

Postby Kali » Fri May 07, 2004 1:35 pm

Is this for real? A partial transcript of Bush/Cheney's 9/11 Commission testimony? I guess it's a joke, but it may as well be their testimony, right?

<a href="http://www.americanpolitics.com/20040428Wiener.html" target="_blank">9/11 Commission Testimony</a>
Kali
Queen
Queen
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 2:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby Jerry586 » Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:29 am

[url=http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/06/17/wir_terror001.cfm]
Seattle was early target[/url]
WASHINGTON - Hitting the tallest building in Washington state was part of an initial plan involving 10 hijacked planes envisioned by Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, according to a report released Wednesday by the commission investigating the attacks.

Based on interviews with government officials and documents they reviewed, the commission said Mohammed initially proposed attacks against the tallest buildings in Washington state and California, the headquarters of the CIA and FBI, and unidentified nuclear plants, in addition to the World Trade Center, Pentagon and White House or Capitol.

The report does not specify which buildings in Washington or California were targets. But the tallest building in Washington is the 76-story Bank of America Tower in downtown Seattle.

In an interview, commission member Slade Gorton told KOMO Radio in Seattle that the building "would be the Bank of America Tower in Seattle, of course."

About 5,000 people work in the 937-foot-tall skyscraper, which opened in 1985 and was known as the Columbia Seafirst Center before changing its name in 1999.

Scary. I've visited this particular building many, many times; I shudder to think what might have happened had it been attacked.
Jerry586
Statesman
Statesman
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:41 am
Location: Oregon

Postby Ferguson Foont » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:18 pm

This is really absurd. What is being reported now as a "threat" was a bunch of wannabe terrorists spitballing about things they might fantasize about doing. I do not believe that the reports about al-Qa'eda activities obtained by torture and threat of incarceration incognito for an indeterminate period are reliable in any way. I think that the people from whom this information was obtained tried to think of anything they could say that might lessen their ordeal.

I give it no credence.
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."
User avatar
Ferguson Foont
Sovereign
Sovereign
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

Postby Josiah Bartlett » Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:53 am

Honorable Commission, Toothless Report
By RICHARD A. CLARKE

Even more important than any bureaucratic suggestions is the report's cogent discussion of who the enemy is and what strategies we need in the fight. The commission properly identified the threat not as terrorism (which is a tactic, not an enemy), but as Islamic jihadism, which must be defeated in a battle of ideas as well as in armed conflict.

We need to expose the Islamic world to values that are more attractive than those of the jihadists. This means aiding economic development and political openness in Muslim countries, and efforts to stabilize places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Restarting the Israel-Palestinian peace process is also vital.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/25clar.html

Richard Clarke is truly a patriot of the highest order. Conversion does not come at the point of a gun.
I too represent the Democratic side of the Democratic Party.
Josiah Bartlett
Congressman
Congressman
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:14 am
Location: The Great Corrupt State of Florida

Previous

Return to Anti-American Terrorism: The Bush League's Best Friend

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron