Victor Gold, Bush associate and speechwriter, drops the 9/11 ball

[truedelphi]

Former Bush Speechwriter Hints at 9/11 Inside Job
By Paul Joseph Watson


Global Research, April 13, 2007


A GOP insider, former Bush 41 speechwriter and close friend of the Bush family writes in his new book that before 9/11, the Neo-Cons in control of the Bush administration were eager to seize upon a manufactured provocation to go to war - just as LBJ had done with the Gulf Of Tonkin in 1965, and questions the official 9/11 story.
Victor Gold is a veteran GOP campaign operative who worked closely with George H.W. Bush on his presidential campaign and also co-wrote his autobiography. He was also tasked with writing the profiles for Dick and Lynn Cheney for the official Inauguration program in 2001.

In his new book, Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Neo-Cons and Holy Rollers Destroyed the GOP, Gold slams the current administration and exposes their zeal for creating a pretext for a war that was planned many years in advance.

Gold confirms that war in Iraq was decided upon from day one, and that a fake pretext was readied and anticipated before 9/11 happened. Though Gold still pins the blame on Al-Qaeda, in acknowledging the fact that the Bush administration would have staged a false flag attack anyway had it not been for 9/11, he is one small step away from intimating that the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were an inside job. end of first four paragraphs


See url below

http://www.coastalpost.com/08/01/09_Bush_Speechwriter_13A0B5.html

[JackRiddler]

1. Wild, eh?

And look at the next paragraph - remember to distinguish Gold quotes from Roberts commentary:

"There would be regime change in Iraq," writes Gold, "All that the Neo-Con war hawks, in the Bush administration and out, needed to bring it about was an excuse to invade. Looking back a half-decade and knowing what we now know, who could doubt that if al Qaeda hadn't obliged the Neo-Cons with 9/11, the Kristolites would have torn a page out of history and, with Rupert Murdoch playing the role of William Randolph Hearst, given us a reprise of the sinking of the Maine?"

William Randolph Hearst was the founder of Hearst Publishing, which today owns Popular Mechanics, the government's foremost mouthpiece for selling the official 9/11 story. Look in the encyclopedia and Hearst is the very definition of yellow journalism. He colluded with the McKinley government to manufacture and propagate through his chain of newspapers, the hoax that the Spanish had sunk the USS Maine in 1898, an event that provided the catalyst for the Spanish-American war.

"Had it not been for 9/11, the Bush White House, determined to go to war, would no doubt have seized on some synthetic provocation, on the order of the one LBJ used to push through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1965," Gold writes.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats, an incident that kicked off US involvement in the Vietnam war, was a staged event that never actually took place. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes discuss how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes and the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost.

[CGowen]

4. Roberts? n/t

[JackRiddler]

6. Paul Craig, author. nt

[CGowen]

9. Isn't it written by Paul Joseph from prisonplanet? n/t

[JackRiddler]

10. At times I'm blind!

At any rate, thanks - very interesting when it comes from within the Bush circle.

[CGowen]

11. Both are picked up by globalresearch, but I couldn't find this one there,

only stuff like:

The New Al-Qaeda: Blonde Haired, Blue Eyed Westerners

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7809

[SidDithers]

2. "Though Gold still pins the blame on Al-Qaeda"...

key point right there.

And I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the Bush admin are opportunistic fucks who took advantage of the situation to force their agenda.

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

3. Boy they were some lucky SOBs, eh?

Especially fortunate if you consider the entire Bush/Cheney agenda could never have happened without that lucky 911 break. They shouldn't be mad at Al-Qaeda, they should be thanking them.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Please read the OP.

When you say that the agenda "could never have happened" without 9/11, you are showing that you have missed a crucial part of the article.

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. Ignored Aug. 6, 2001 PDB = LIHOP. n/t

[wildbilln864]

12. and "it's 50 miles out"...

30 miles out, 10 miles out, do the orders still stand?"=MIHOP! :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Mineta says that was a shootdown order, wildbill.

Was he mistaken?

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. what was shot down?

Flight 93? Another plane we don't know about? Certainly not flight 77, if it hit the Pentagon, right?

If the order to shoot down still stood, what was shot down and where is it?

:shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Nothing was shot down.

A order given and an order still standing is not an order fulfilled.

Are you disputing what Mineta has to say?

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. Why was the order not carried out?

Afterall, an order is an order, correct? If he was asking if the order still stood and was told yes, why wasn't the order carried out or "fulfilled", as you put it?

Whose head rolled for not following an order?


"Are you disputing what Mineta has to say?"

Ummmm... no, I'm asking questions. You *do* know what those are, don't you? <~~(that was another one right there, in case you *don't* know)

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Why do you think?

What a silly game you like to play.

The order was not carried out because no one had the opportunity to do so. No head rolled for not following an order because no one was ever in a position to carry out the order.

Please state openly and honestly your answer to this question: Do you accept Mineta's account that the order was a shootdown order? If not, why not?

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. Please try to follow along and keep up.. having to slow down and wait for you gets old quickly

The only one playing a game here is you, bolo, and you alone. Did I ever question if it was a shoot down order not? I didn't think so. I asked what was shot down, didn't I? Yes, that's what I thought. Are you caught up yet? Yes? Good, because here comes exposure of more of your bullshit games:

The order was not carried out because no one had the opportunity to do so. No head rolled for not following an order because no one was ever in a position to carry out the order.

*AHEM*

9:55 a.m.

The Vice President in the Bunker: 'Should We Engage?' 'Yes.'

Once airborne, Bush spoke again to Cheney, who said the combat air patrol needed rules of engagement if pilots encountered an aircraft that might be under the control of hijackers. Cheney recommended that Bush authorize the military to shoot down any such civilian airliners-as momentous a decision as the president was asked to make in those first hours. "I said, 'You bet,'" Bush recalled. "We had a little discussion, but not much."

Louisiana Detour: Advised not to return to Washington, Bush confers with Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr. on Air Force One. (By Eric Draper - The White House)

Bush then talked to Rumsfeld to clarify the procedures military pilots should follow in trying to force an unresponsive plane to the ground before opening fire on it. First, pilots would seek to make radio contact with the other plane and tell the pilot to land at a specific location. If that failed, the pilots were to use visual signals. These included having the fighters fly in front of the other plane.

If the plane continued heading toward what was seen as a significant target with apparently hostile intent, the U.S. pilot would have the authority to shoot it down. With Bush's approval, Rumsfeld passed the order down the chain of command.

In the White House bunker, a military aide approached the vice president.

"There is a plane 80 miles out," he said.

"There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?"

"Yes," Cheney replied without hesitation.

Around the vice president, Rice, deputy White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, tensed as the military aide repeated the question, this time with even more urgency. The plane was now 60 miles out. "Should we engage?" Cheney was asked.

"Yes," he replied again.

As the plane came closer, the aide repeated the question. Does the order still stand?

"Of course it does," Cheney snapped.

The vice president said later that it had seemed "painful, but nonetheless clear-cut. And I didn't agonize over it."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now... would you like to tell me again that "The order was not carried out because no one had the opportunity to do so. No head rolled for not following an order because no one was ever in a position to carry out the order."????????????????

I didn't think so.... and btw... exactly when did flight 93 get within 80 miles of Washington, or any other high profile target??

Whatever your answer is, the fact remains that a shoot down order was NOT carried out, since they deny shooting down flight 93 in Shanksville, right? Who disobeyed a direct order, handed down from the president, to shoot a plane down?

Please take all the time you need to answer so that you're not lost when you reply.

Thanks...

[Bolo Boffin]

21. I didn't stutter before. No one was able to carry out the order.

A "fighter in the area"? Exactly where was that? How large an area?

The NORAD tapes are available. Go listen to them. No one ever was able to engage any of the 9/11 planes. No one was ever in a position to carry out that order.

A vague quote from a newspaper is not enough here. Go find out exactly which fighter was exactly in which area, and then maybe you have something.

Until then, adios.

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. It's your theory, *you* back it up and support it...

I just showed you where a White House aide said "there is a fighter in the area".

You said it wasn't close enough so support your claim.

BTW, you *still* haven't answered the question about "exactly when was flight 93 within 60 or 80 miles from a high profile target in DC, or anywhere else"....

Your silence is deafening, bolo. Why is that? Is it because you're relying on more "lazy shortcuts and hoping someone else proves you right"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

boloboffin (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-07-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Sometimes I do take shortcuts, and sometimes I get burned.
But to be honest, the number of times I've taken shortcuts and been proven right is far more often that when I get burned. That's why I keep it up. It does keep me honest to be proven wrong every now and again. I don't care about that. I care about the truth, and I care about getting Democratic candidates in office, that order.

Being wrong means you're still learning. Persisting in being wrong means you've closed your mind to the truth.


There were many snapshots of children, most painstakingly glued back together. - Lyz Glick

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=182119#182403

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For some odd, unknown reason I expected better from you, bolo.... I'll not make that mistake again in the future...

adios, indeed...

[Bolo Boffin]

26. What fighter in what "area"? What are you talking about?

You've proven nothing. This is your position. You prove it.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. Hey wildbill, why is it....

that the OCTabots can't answer a simple question like "when was flight 93 ever within 80, 60, 50 or 10 miles from DC, or any other high profile target"??

:hi:

Keep 'em stirred up, wildbill.. you do a great job of it! :hi:

[noise]

7. They were tasked with protecting the country

It wasn't like they were bystanders. IMO, their (high ranking Bush administration officials) conduct was along the lines of dereliction of duty (at best) which suggests something more sinister than capitalizing on tragedy.

[subsuelo]

13. It is truly not that far of a jump either

to go from the 'incompetency' argument to 'dereliction of duty' to some form of LIHOP or even MIHOP.

Furthermore, those who pretend that any and all 9-11 conspiracy theory amounts to ridiculous lunacy are blatantly dishonest

[truedelphi]

27. The History Channel had this rather hilarious

Refutation of the Nine Eleven Truth movemnet.

Among the statements that the OFC crowd makes is how millions of Americans are delusional in believing that our planes would actually be set up to defend the country.

The OFC crowd doesn't elaborate that much - it is along the lines of "You don't really think we have more than five or six planes in the whole country on the ready, armed, and looking out for COntinental USA should there be some threat."

In fact that was one of the things about the 911 Commission testimony that initially made me suspicious - why didn't someone somewhere in the chain of command be relieved of duty? Americans had spent $ 32 trillion dollars in case we ever were attacked and yet not much happened by way of defense on 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Yawn. Old news.

The OP is almost a year old, and is there anyone in the universe that doesn't know Bush was gunning for Saddam from Day One?

Yawn.

[wildbilln864]

22. It's not old news to everyone!

There may be many here that don't realize how 911 was the Bush/PNAC's answer to their published desires. This stuff isn't going away just because you want it to.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. So your target audience are people so ill-informed as to not know these things?

I guess they are out there.

PNAC never said that it desired a new Pearl Harbor. Produce the quote.