9/11 Commission: The Money Quote
To all those sheep-like supporters of the 9/11 Commission, have I got a quote for you. Apparently, the number of Americans who now believe that the US government was complicit in the attack is around a third, so perhaps that is why the Commissioners are starting to talk about their work. Are you ready for a shocker? It turns out they were suspicious that the Pentagon was deliberately misleading them on what happened that morning. They even thought about it in criminal terms before rolling over and rubber-stamping the official story. How disgraceful considering what we owed to the Americans who died that morning. If the government's story checks out, they could clear up the "confusion" in a few minutes. Just release the information, especially the confiscated tapes of the Pentagon. In case you noticed, the tape they did finally release was inconclusive. Why? The main questions many have involve our air defenses that morning. Why did Dick Cheney order a stand-down? What was NORAD really doing that day? I often get comments that seem to indicate anyone who doesn't accept the fine work of the 9/11 Commission is an American-hating nutcase. Ouch! But here's a quote you should ponder from one of your beloved 9/11 Commissioners: "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied." Okay, Bush supporters, think about that statement. Does it make it harder to open your mouths and make that "baaing" sound, like obedient sheep always do? In fact, there's your book title for the entire George Bush presidency: "So Far From the Truth".
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
posted by Bill McDonald @ 7:41 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
Bill, you are certifiably batty. To interpret anything in that article as showing that our governmnet may have been complicit in the 9/11 attacks is so far removed from reality, I hardly know where to begin.
Here is what you are basically doing. Suppose two teenagers are driving in a car at night. The driver goes too fast around a corner, goes off the road and hits a telephone pole, and the passenger dies. The surviving driver tells the police he was going the speed limit. A witness later comes forward to say that the driver was indeed speeding.
You are essentially saying the driver intentionally murdered the passenger by deliberately driving into that telephone pole. A rational person, on the other hand, would conclude that either A) the teenager actually thought he was going the speed limit and was just wrong; or B) knew he was speeding but was afraid to tell that to the police because of guilt or fear of punishment.
Wrongdoinng does not always equate to criminal intent. Except in your mind when it comes to the Bush Administration. Do you also think that the bungling of the Katrina response was intentional to rid New Orleans of black, Democrat voters?
PS - I don't follow the 9/11 commissions findings like 'sheep'. I think the 9/11 Commission was hogwash - a political dog and pony show for the television cameras.
You're saying it was incompetence rather than criminal intent? Incompetence didn't bring Building 7 down.
I'd also like your opinion on whether this has even happened before in American History? Has this government ever stirred up people to go to war, based on a deliberately faked set of circumstances?
Finally, I'd like to know if you believe the American People deserve a chance to see and hear all the evidence? The 9/11 widows had to fight Bush and Cheney even to get this Commission. Don't you think that's disgraceful?
Let me get this straight: On the one hand, you think the Commission was a bunch of BS and merely glossed over the facts. On the other, you think it was "disgraceful" that Bush and Cheney fought even having it? Sounds to me like you should have been on Bush's side on that fight.
No, I don't think it was disgraceful because from the outset, it was apparent that the only purpose of the 9/11 Commission was so that Democrats could finger point and grandstand prior to the midterm elections. If that wasn't the case, they would have elected not to televise the hearings - have them completely behind closed doors so that they could actually hear classified information and possibly actually accomplish finding out what went wrong. Do you think that some of the misinformation given to the commission at the outset may have had something to do with the Pentagon not wanting our security protocols broadcast 24/7 over CNN and Fox?
Nice use of twisted logic. I would have preferred getting the true story of 9/11 and a President who wouldn't rest till he had it. Oh, and by the way, if this was incompetence I would prefer that somebody would lose their job. What happened was everybody got promoted.
Let me start again: I have heard that the 9/11 Commission Report settled the questions of 9/11. I have heard it from people writing in. Now we have the head of the Commission saying that NORAD, for example, was far from truthful. That doesn't prove criminal intent as you point out. It just proves that when anonymous commenters like yourself say that the 9/11 Commission settled these questions, they are wrong. That's the progress here, and the fact that NORAD was singled out is huge. That's what I meant by the Money Quote. There are other important quotes like the one about the decision to "pull" Building 7, but in my opinion it is very valuable knowing the head of the Commission couldn't get a straight answer from the government on this. You go on about the Democrats grandstanding, but how much have Republicans grandstanded on National Security? Finding out how 9/11 happened would strengthen our national security for the future, wouldn't it? Some accountibility wouldn't hurt either. That's why what the Bush administration managed to do here, first by denying the investigation, and then by producing this result is disgraceful. It's also very suspicious.
Lot of assumptions there. First, assuming that Bush didn't want 9/11 investigated. Bush didn't want a dog and pony show that he correctly knew would be turned into a public, politicized bitch-fest. That doesn'l mean he didn't want it investigated.
Do you admit that an investigation into 9/11 - which would include investigating our intelligence community, defense protocols, and what knowledge Bush and previous administrations had regarding Al Quaeda - might, just maybe, just a teenyweenie bit involve diseminating classified information? Ya think? And if so, do you agree that an open to the public, televised daily, unclassified investigation and hearings might be not the most ideal process? Maybe - just maybe - THAT was Bush's reason for opposing the 9/11 Commission?
Another assumption you have is that I agree with the findings of the 9/11 Commission. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Seriously Bill. It is counter-productive to your cause. Voicing extremist positions only leads rational people to take nothing seriously from those voicing them. Your original post was intended to 'mislead' readers into believing that the WaPo article you linked indicated that the US was complicit in the attacks. That was exactly the same kind of deception you accuse this administration of using to 'dupe' the American people into supporting the invasion of Iraq.
One thing I know you stated that is incorrect: That the original post was intended to mislead. Just because you didn't follow it, don't put the intent on me.
I thought these were fairly profound statements and I noticed them just now on a cable news station.
Your most misleading statement is that these hearings were all on TV. " And if so, do you agree that an open to the public, televised daily, unclassified investigation and hearings might be not the most ideal process? Maybe - just maybe - THAT was Bush's reason for opposing the 9/11 Commission?"
That is not how the Commission worked. It wasn't all on TV. There were classified parts and unclassified. Bush and Cheney, for example, appeared behind closed doors and the American Public never saw that. It is suspicious that they went together and only pre-9/11 warnings were discussed. If I remember correctly they were also not under oath. It is not true that Bush sat in Cheney's lap.
I thank you for worrying about what is counter-productive to my cause.
What if this thing is as ominous as it appears to me. By the way, governments have acted this way in the past. It's our responsibility to get to the bottom of this. We lost a lot of people that morning and they deserve us following up on this. Do you think it honors their memory when the Republican head of the Commission complains about how far from the truth the testimony he got was? If I'm trying to dupe someone - why don't you tell me what you think that means. Remember, your response to the format of the 9/11 testimony was factually inaccurate, so this time explain NORAD and the other Pentagon responses using facts. Then if you're concerned about national security, tell me who was held accountable for what went wrong that morning?
If this was incompetence, who got fired?
Very, VERY select portions of the hearing were not televised, and that is irrelevant because the entire report was made public. Like I said, this was whole Commission was a political sham. Did you watch any of it? Do you remember the "Jersey Girls" jeering and cat-calling from the balcony? The Commissioners 'statements' masked as "questions" to those being interrogated? It was a joke. A public show for a process that, if intended to produce honest results, would have been entirely behind closed doors.
Sorry if - and I mean "if" - I was wrong in accusing you of intentionally misleading in your post. If it truly wasn't your intent, now you know how Bush feels.
Look, I took several years before I could bring myself to contemplate any of this. I don't want it to be true. Until I saw what they did with the post-9/11 support, it didn't even occur to me that something could be wrong. We owe it to this country to find out. Our allegiance isn't to Bush and Cheney; it's to America.
So we should spend millions investigating every crack-pot theory dreampt up by partisan conspiracy theorists? Well, the people who claimed Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster will agree with you.....
Let's agree to limit how much we spend on investigating 9/11 to what we spend in a day in Iraq. That should cover it. I don't think we'd lose any national secrets if they'd just release the other videos of whatever hit the Pentagon. Wait, let me rephrase that: Maybe it would reveal one of our biggest national secrets of all. It's interesting how hesitant some people are. Would you mine if the other videos from that day were released?
I wouldn't mind if they were released provided they don't reveal any classified information that would prove detrimental to our national security.
Funny how you insist this 'bumbling, incompetent administration headed by a Chimp' is able to pull off a conspiracy that would involve at least hundreds of co-conspirators to pull off without the tiniest of leaks. Those co-conspirators would have to include numerous Clinton appointments to the Pentagon and the CIA - many of whom have shown absolutely no problem leaking what they feel is damaging to this administration. Or maybe you think Dick Cheney personally donned a jumpsuit and hardhat, and in the middle of the night snuck into the WTC, drilled the thousands of holes and planted the thousands of charges that brought the towers down? Wow, these guys are good.
Look into it. I love it when that theory is pulled out: Too many people would have had to know. Actually this thing could have been done with a very small group, and many would not be aware of what they were doing or why. Maybe they were eliminated afterwards.
I point you to the radaiton experiments of the 1950s to prove that a conspiracy can occur and remain a secret. That one was revealed by the Energy Secretary in the Carter Administration if I remember correctly, decades after it happened. If she hadn't come forward it'd still be a secret.
By the way you used quotes to make up something I didn't say. You should write "in effect" to make that clear.
We here in the left-wing old folks home had a bet on how long it would take the nutty anonymous to bring up Clinton (which he did at 3:47).
Damn, I owe everyone a Mactarnhan.
What' being left out of this one-sided debate (point to Bill for logic and facts) is that it is the coverup that will eventually get the administration. Lies are eventually uncovered (such as the reasons for the Iraq war, or as we like to call it, Cheney's Retirement Fund).
The down side is a hell of a lot of kids will die needlessly before people wake up and smell the rot in this administration.
I didn't use "quotes", I used 'quotes'. I've always understood that 'quotes' indicate paraphrasing.
Bill, you are basically doing what all crack-pot conspiracy theorists do. You take every instance of unknown or even uncertain information and fill it with your worst-case scenario.
Listen, I can tell you're a smart guy, but you seem to share a trait with most of the "creative" people I've known - not just creative people, but anyone who is irrationally passionate about a perceived cause. Its a willingness to beleive in fiction if it is something you WANT to believe in. You fill in gaps of uncertainty with 'facts' you read on the internet that support this theory that you want to believe in to justify your hatred of Bush. That's exactly what racists and biggots have done to jews and blacks throughout history. It is what Americans did to the Japanese during WWII. You accept one as your enemy, and you choose to believe or at the very least accept as possible the worst thing you can immagine about them.
If the exact same series of events had played out exactly as they did after 9/11 - including the Iraq war, but under the Gore Administration, you know darn well this site would be the last place we'd be reading about these conspiracy theories.
PS - laurelhurstdad, Mactarnahan's sucks. Go have another.
Actually, I don't want this one to be true. Are you kidding? The idea that our government has something to do with this makes me sick. That is also true of the JFK situation. I actually saw the son by the way. I saw John in person and I felt sad. We didn't do right by him with his father. I want to do right by the people who died in the Towers. By the way, I went up in one of those once, too. We should get the people who caused our citizens to jump to their deaths. We should do a first-rate investigation no matter where it leads. That hasn't happened yet and I want to know why? We should have gotten Osama by now instead of the diversion into Iraq. Is any of this making sense to you?
It all makes sense to me. Its simply a difference on how you approach the problem.
Claiming that evidence we are not doing the job is that we haven't gotten OBL yet is a red herring in my book. Consider the 'war on drugs'. Do you chase the small time dealer, his supplier, or go after the Columbian cartel? The hijackers were the dealers, Osama was the supplier, and Nations like Iran, Syria, and Iraq are the cartels.
I beleive it really is that simple. You can't institute a fundamental change in a radical dominated, sectarian culture without a very radical change. That wasn't going to happen by itself. Fundamentalist Islam has let modern, tolerant culture pass it by and has left is culturally and economically in the dust. You don't change that dynamic by letting it fester. Its a cancer, and you've got to inject the chemo into it no matter how sick it makes you feel in the short term.
You let this go unchecked, and twenty years from now we would have a Nuclear Iran, a Nuclear Iraq, and a Nuclear Israel within a couple hundred miles of each other - all believing compete anilation of their enemy is the only hope for their own survival. How would we resolve that situation? You have to make the hard choice while they are still choices.
quidproquo - hope that didn't scare you too much.
Anonymous, you really are full of it.
Now, on the subject of "building 7", I think the conspiracy theorists are full of crap, too. You drop two giant towers composed of millions of tons of concrete and steel on landfill and stuff nearby is going to take a beating.
But your theory about going into Iraq to somehow prevent a nuclear buildup in the region is just as kooky. For one thing, Iraq wasn't anywhere near having nuclear (or other WMD) capabilities, something that was obvious to most of the world -- and verified by UN inspectors -- in early 2003. It wasn't a fundamentalist Islamic state before we invaded. It wasn't even a fundamentalist Islamic state before Saddam took over. It was actually one of the more advanced Arab countries in the region -- which was exactly the reason they had the engineers and scientists (including women) who could produce weapons back before the first Gulf War. It was the US invasion that opened the door for the fundamentalists to move into the power vacuum. Saddam used to kill those people (like Sadr's father).
The idea that our government was involved in 9-11 is so abhorrent to most Americans that they refuse to give the thought any merit. However, questions are being raised by people like Steven Jones, Professor from the Dept of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. He presents evidence for the controlled demolition hypothesis, using thermite. It is not only psycho nutjobs or conspiracy theorists who are seeking additional information from our government regarding what events occurred pertaining to 9-11. Since the government is elected to serve we the people, I do not see what it could hurt to investigate further and release any information needed to ascertain the truth. If it can be proven that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down not by the fires but by controlled demolition than no doubt we will hear of a second group of terrorists who planted the explosives, or else the same terrorists planted the explosives before flying. Don't take my word for it, do your own research. It is all at your fingertips. Portland Indy Media has information, Yahoo has alot of information, including videos of Steven Jones. Give it a try, what do you have to lose?
Post a Comment
<< Home