Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Whose negligence would you say is most to blame for the attacks of 9/11?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 02:37 PM
Original message
Whose negligence would you say is most to blame for the attacks of 9/11?
Since many people say there was sufficient evidence to predict that it was going to happen.

???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wrong.
Edited on Tue May-06-08 06:36 PM by nebula
they had a mountain of evidence to predict 9/11 in their hands. Everyone from chimpy's own counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, to the CIA, the Aug. 6 PDB, several foreign intelligence agencies around the world, all sounding the alarm, everyone had their hair on fire in the days before 9/11. And yet, the Bush administration utterly ignored everything. Why?? Their mishandling of 9/11 goes beyond mere negligence, it shows willful criminal intent.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-06-08 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Tenet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Didn't Tenet fly out to the pig farm?
I'm surprised you would blame Tenet. There is the oft told story that a "CIA official" went to Bush's ranch to tell him about an coming terrorist attack and that Bush said something to the effect, "you've covered your ass, you can go now." Some accounts say that the "CIA official" was Tenet.

Why would you blame him? It seems to me that Tenet, Clark and others had very precise warnings and that the effort to prevent the attacks was thwarted at the very top -- Bush and Cheney.

I realize he is an ass-kissing syncophant and blameworthy in many other ways, but I'm curious why you would blame Tenet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. I'm not sure that it was Tenet. Can someone flesh this out?
Edited on Wed May-07-08 03:39 PM by Flatulo
However, I still blame him because the onus is on the CIA director to make the case to the POTUS that there is a real and imminent threat. If Tenet did not make the case strongly enough (ie, resigning, going to the NYTimes, etc) then either

a) he did not believe that it warranted the highest level of response or

b) he is a wimp and a butt-licker.

Now, over the course of my career I've nearly been fired a few times for making the case to management that certain things were screwed up that they did not want to hear about. I have been right often enough that my usefullness has outweighed my irritation factor.

Tenet should have done as much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-08-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I'd go for "b) he is a wimp".
Ultimately it was B*sh & Cheney who made the decisions to 1) permit 9/11 and 2) invade Iraq no matter what. Tenet, Powell and Clarke did not stand up to them - they were loyal stooges.

Even someone like John Ashcroft was a loyal stooge and useful idiot - the actual number of neocon insiders who knew the full ramifications of what they were doing was probably quite small.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. The Office of Faith Based Security

"Negligence" is not the right word.

Reckless disregard as a consequence of extreme arrogance is more like it.

It is why these people who profess "government can't do anything right" should NEVER be elected to govern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. CIA
Its their job to smoke this shit out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. What makes you think they didn't? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Duh.
Edited on Wed May-07-08 10:29 AM by Sweet Pea
On edit, that was a sucky post to wast my 1000th on, but what the hey!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Um, what? I mean, wouldn't 9/11 make you think they didn't?
Because if they had, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Like I said....
a sucky post to waste my 1000th on.

What I meant was if the CIA did its job and knew/discovered/found out/cracked this plan, it could have been stopped.

I have every belief in that.

Others choose to ascribe more nefarious ends to the government, that they DID know about it and either allowed it to go forward unabated or assisted in its execution.

There is absolutely no evidence of such a thing happening, and I feel people who subscribe to that sort of thought are absolute and complete idiots and lack any and all objective reasoning and critical thinking skills. They should be segregated from normal society so as not to poison the rest of the well of civilization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-08-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. There is tons of evidence that the gov't knew attacks were coming.
Bush was given the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"
memo a month before the attacks. The German press says the
memo was 11 pages, not a page and a half, and that the
page numbers appear have been redacted from the document
suggests the Germans had it right.

The German press tells us that the Mossad named names when
they warned of 19 terrorists in the USA planning something
big. Only four names have been released, but all are alleged
9/11 hijackers.

Al Qaeda's "Project Bojinka" plan to fly hijacked airliners
into Sears Tower, TransAmerica Pyramid, WTC, and the Pentagon
had been known since 1995.

There were warnings from 13 countries and 3 FBI offices.

Whenever I hear a Bush apologist say "There is no evidence for..."
I know a whopper is coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. Is that *all* you've got? Jingoistic Patriotism?
The stupid in this post really hurt my brain... FUCK a bunch of jingoistic patriotism, ok?


What I meant was if the CIA did its job and knew/discovered/found out/cracked this plan, it could have been stopped.


Then why *wasn't* it stopped? They knew the "hijackers" were in the country and they *knew* that they were al-Qaida...


I have every belief in that.


Do you also believe in Santa and the Magical Mythical Sky Fairy?



Others choose to ascribe more nefarious ends to the government, that they DID know about it and either allowed it to go forward unabated or assisted in its execution.


That's because not everyone has their head up their ass and they can see whats going on around them



There is absolutely no evidence of such a thing happening,


BULLSHIT! Ignored warnings, etc. that have already been provided to you speak volumes... try reading them for once


and I feel people who subscribe to that sort of thought are absolute and complete idiots and lack any and all objective reasoning and critical thinking skills.


It's a good thing your *feelings* don't matter here, huh? Once again, some people need to pull their heads out of their asses and think for themselves for once in their lives. They're the ones lacking "any and all objective reasoning and critical thinking skills".



They should be segregated from normal society so as not to poison the rest of the well of civilization.


How very progressive of you! No... really! Let's take everyone who doesn't agree with us and who doesn't toe the line and lock them up in a detention facility somewhere. Who else was it who thought this way? I think it started with an "H"... ummmm... hmmm... do *you* know who it was?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. Neocons. Neocons think they create their own reality, so they totally suck at handling emergencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. That's a really good way of putting it....

...and what I mean by "faith based security".

These are the people who, in the face of every study that abstinence education has no measurable impact, continue to believe it does.

Evidence, facts, rationality, pragmatism, mean nothing to these people. Their reality IS their agenda.

They will end up rationalizing Iraq the same way the German right rationalized WWI, and the US right rationalized Vietnam - i.e. just when we were about to win "the enemy within" stole victory right out of our hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MinM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. We know that 9/11 was not an "intelligence failure,"...
but an "intelligence success" that included the use of guided al-Qaeda assets, and "hijacker" intelligence legends.
http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/082405Chin/082405chin.html

We know that the Kean 9/11 Commission has been a massive cover-up, from its inception to the very end.
http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/062904Chin/062904chin.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. George Walker Bush & Richard Bruce Cheney are totally to blame..
Ignored Aug, 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "bin Laden Determined to attack", along with GWB telling a CIA agent "ok, you've covered your ass now" = LIHOP. There is no other conclusion. Period.

It's all part of the 'Grand Neocon Plan' of world domination through military superiority. The war in Iraq was in planning stages since Clinton was President. How long do you think the neocons have been infiltrated into out government?

I think a lot of this was supposed to start in Poppy's second term, but Clinton threw a wrench in their works when he got elected. That's why they fought tooth & nail to get rid of him. Hell, they were trying to do away with the ICC treaty 2 days after Clinton signed it...

January 2, 2001

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: GARY SCHMITT

SUBJECT: International Criminal Court

On the last day of 2000, President Clinton signed the International Criminal Court convention, a treaty which the president himself admits is flawed and which he has no intention of submitting to the Senate for its ratification. The president did so, he said, in order to put the U.S. in a position to help correct the treaty’s imperfections. But the ICC accord is not just flawed -- it is fatally flawed -- and the best policy is for the U.S. to reject the treaty simply. Without America’s participation, the ICC will die on the vine.

More than two years ago, at the conclusion of the conference in Rome which finalized the treaty’s terms, we voiced our concern that the Clinton Administration would continue to try and fix the un-fixable. As we argued then, whatever the respectable motives behind the creation of the International Criminal Court, we should not let those blind us to the fact that the preservation of a decent world order depends chiefly on the exercise of American leadership. For both geo-political and constitutional reasons, we should not be in the business of delegating that leadership or compounding the difficulties of its exercise by creating unaccountable, supra-national bodies.

We also circulated at the time a statement on the ICC made by John Bolton, vice president of the American Enterprise Institute and a Project director, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (July 23, 1998). No major, substantive change has been made to the treaty’s terms since. Bolton’s statement still stands as a thorough and devastating critique of the proposed court. An edited version of that statement follows.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/global0201.htm


or.. you can pick about *any* document here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

Be sure to check these out:

How to Attack Iraq Weekly Standard Editorial, November 16, 1998

A Way to Oust Saddam, Robert Kagan, Weekly Standard, September 28, 1998

Wolfowitz Statement on U.S. Policy Toward Iraq, Project Memorandum, Gary Schmitt, September 18, 1998



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-08-08 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
15. That of anyone who knew and had any power whatsoever to stop it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-08-08 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
18. RE: Whose negligence would you say is most to blame for the attacks of 9/11?
Edited on Thu May-08-08 04:34 PM by rschop
There is now more than enough evidence to prove many people knew about these attacks and it is now easy to see where the negligence, the out right criminal negligence, is found.

Here is a partial list of who knew what when and what did they do about the information they had.

CIA:

The CIA knew the names of several of the terrorists who were to take part in this attack for 21 months, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi. They even had photographs of them from surveillance of an al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 5-8, 2000. They had photographed at this same meeting Khallad Bin Attash, later found to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing who had recruited and trained several of the terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11. At this meeting both the attack on the USS Cole and the attacks on the World Trade Towers had been planned. Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi were all on flight AA 77 that hit the Pentagon.

The CIA knew they were all long time al Qaeda terrorists, knew several weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11 that they were inside of the US. But what is the most horrific, the CIA even ultimately knew several weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11 that they were going to take part in a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

The CIA knew that the Kuala Lumpur meeting where these terrorists had been photographed had taken place less that one week after the hijacking of AirIndia 814, a hijacking where the hijacked aircraft was flown to the airport at Kandahar, Afghanistan , the airport where Mohammed Atef, military commander of the al Qaeda terrorists, had his headquarters. and the administration headquarters of the al Qaeda terrorists. So the CIA knew full well that the meeting in Kuala Lumpur with many long time al Qaeda terrorists was being held in order to plan future aircraft hijackings.

June 12, 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the CIA finds out Khalid Sheik Mohammed is involved in the huge attack they are aware of. They are told KSM is sending many al Qaeda terrorists into the US, in the summer of 2001, to link up with other al Qaeda terrorists who already inside of the US to carry out this attack.
The CIA already knows Ramzi Yousef had been arrested at an al Qaeda safe house in 1996, that Yousef and KSM are related, and that both had been involved in the 1993 bombing at the WTC Towers and in the Bojinka plot. Philippine intelligence had already told the CIA that the second part of the Bojinka plot, found on Harkim Abdul Murrad's computer, described hijacking multiple aircraft inside of the US and flying them into the WTC Towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol and the CIA HQ. The CIA was aware that KSM had helped financed the WTC Towers attack of 1993,

So when the CIA is told the names of the people who are behind the attack in the summer of 2001 it is inconceivable that they do not know that it involves multiple hijacked aircraft and the targets are the WTC Towers, Pentagon, Capitol and other symbolic buildings in the US.

Tom Wilshire, former Deputy Chief of the Bin Laden unit.

July 5, 2001 Wilshire sends email back to the CIA and his CTC mangers that says he is sure that people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi, are all connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack, warnings that the CIA has been receiving since April 2001.

July 13, 2001, just 3 days after Tenet and Black tell Rice and Clarke a huge al Qaeda attack will take place inside of the US that will kill thousands of Americans, Wilshire asks his CTC managers via email, for permission to send this information to the FBI. He is never given this permission.

NOTE: I had personally asked Bob Woodward, who was speaking in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club, in October 2006, and who works at the Washington Post and is the author of "State of Denial" when he clearly describes this July 10, 2001 meeting is his book, and the fact that Tenet and Black told Rice and Clarke about this horrific attack, then why did Tenet ad Black forbid Wilshire on July 13, 2001, three days after this famous July 10, 2001 meeting from transferring the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting, and Khallad, Mihdhar and Hazmi, over to the FBI, an action that would have prevented the attacks that took place in 9/11. His answer was "every time you look at the events on 9/11 you can peel back yet another layer of the onion!"

July 23, 2001 Wilshire again sends a email request to his CTC mangers asking what had happened to his July 13 request to transfer information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI and further says he is sure Mihdhar, and by association, Hazmi, will be found at the point of the next big al Qaeda attack. He again is not given permission. It is clear his CTC mangers were being supervised and directed by CTC head Cofer Black and his boss George Tenet.

August 22, 2001, Wilshire is told by FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie, a FBI IOS agent working at the CIA Bin Laden unit, that Mihdhar and Hazmi are now both inside of the US. While, he is clearly aware that they will take part in a huge al Qaeda attack that will kill thousands of Americans, Wilshire continues to hide this information from the FBI, and also continues to hide the photo of Khallad Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur from the FBI knowing this will allow FBI agents at FBI HQ (FBI Agent Dina Corsi) to block any investigation of Mihdhar and will prevent the FBI criminal investigators from stopping these attacks. He clearly knows that as a result, thousands on Americans will perish from his and CIA actions.

George Tenet and Cofer Black

July 10, 2001 Tenet and Black tell Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke that a huge al Qaeda attacks is just about to take place inside of the US that will kill thousands of Americans.

July 17, 2001, Tenet and Black tell Rumsfeld and Ashcroft the same information that a huge al Qaeda attack will take place inside of the US that will kill thousands of Americans. Ashcroft is so terrified of being killed in a aircraft hijacking, he immediately quits flying on commercial aircraft for fear of being on a aircraft hijacked by al Qaeda terrorists. Since Ashcroft is suppose to be the head of the FBI it is strange he does never tells the FBI what the CIA knows. CBS reports this on July 26, 2001.

August 23, 2001

When Gillespie forces the CIA Bin Laden unit to issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 23, 2001, the entire CIA Bin Laden unit and even the entire CIA hierarchy, including Tenet and Black, knew these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US for no other reason than to take part in the huge al Qaeda attack the CIA was aware of. Yet this information is deliberately kept secret by all of these people, from the FBI. Although we are told in the CIA IG report that 50-60 people at the CIA are now aware of this information, no one raises any alarm and no alarm is ever given to anyone at the FBI about the huge attack inside of the US that is just about to take place.

Tenet is also told about Zacarias Moussaoui on August 23, 2001, and is told that the FBI thinks he is an al Qaeda terrorist training on a 747 without any flight experience because it appears to them he is planning to take part in an aircraft hijacking that will fly a plane into the WTC towers. Moussaoui is found with two four-inch knives in his possessions. The CIA is told Moussaoui is in hurry to finish his flight training by August 22, 1001.

August 24, 2001 Tenet flies down to Crawford for an emergency meeting with the President, a meeting that has been kept secret from the MSM and the American people. In the 9/11 Commission hearings on April 14, 2004 Tenet was asked by Tim Roemer on the 9/11 Commission why if he knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place that would kill thousands of Americans why did he not tell the President in August 2001. He said he had not talked to the President in August, but Bill Harlow, CIA spokesperson, right after Tenet was done with his testimony and could no longer be asked any questions, said Tenet had lied. He had flown down to Crawford in August several times and talked to the President.

So why did Tenet lie, this shows in legal terms what is referred to as consciousness of guilt, an action that shows you are guilty of something. It is clear that Tenet did not want to answer, and in fact was afraid to answer any questions as to what did he tell the President in August about this huge attack. But Tim Roemer had asked him multiple times if he knew thousands of Americans were just about to be killed in this huge attack, and the President's most important job is to keep the American people protected, what did he tell the President in August to make sure Tenet did not misunderstand the question. Tenet said he not talked to the President at all in August because he was in Washington and the President was in Crawford. When he was asked why he did not pick up the telephone and call the President, Tenet said he could not explain why he did not pick up the telephone and call the President, this was just something he could not explain. When asked what did he tell the people at the Principles meeting on September 4, 2001, this was the first Principles meeting on the al Qaeda terrorists in the current administration, Tenet said he told them nothing, and when asked why, he said, "For what ever reason it was not appropriate, (to tell the Principles that a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place that would kill thousands of Americans), and he could not explain any further.

When asked by Scott Pelle in 60 Minutes if Tenet told Rice, Clarke, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, why did he not tell the President, Tenet said he simply just had not told the President and then said he could not explain this any further. Tenet said Pelle could ask until the cows came home but he would have no further explanation to this all but incomprehensible behavior!

So what did Tenet tell the President in August or the six times he talked to the President in September just before the attacks on 9/11?

The whole world would like to know.

Was he lying when he said he had not told the President. He had lied many times to the Joint Inquiry Committee and to the 9/11 Commission but we are now suppose to believe Tenet on this issue, even when it is clear that his answer makes no sense and he says he will not further explain his answer to clarify an answer that makes absolutely no sense.

If Tenet did not tell the President he is then clearly guilty of treason and the whole world knows it. But if he did tell the President and the President did nothing and just let all of these 3000 Americans be murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists on 9/11 then you have to reach an entirely different conclusion.

Tenet won't say what he told the President in August or September. Then what did Rice, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft tell the President, when they were all told of this huge al Qaeda attack the CIA had told them about? We don't know the answer for that either.

So many questions and so few answers! The conclusions you can reach is up to every American to reach themselves.

But it is now clear that the Director of the CIA, the head of the CTC section of the CIA, the entire Bin Laden unit at the CIA, several CIA stations including Yemen, Thailand and Malaysia and even the FBI director, the head of the FBI ITOS, the liaison to the FBI ITOS, the FBI Bin Laden unit and the FBI RFU unit were all involved in hiding critical information from the FBI field criminal investigators or in blocking critical investigations of at least three al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US.

We now know that almost everyone of importance in the current administration, including Rice, Clarke, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and perhaps even the President himself, clearly knew about this attack, knew it would kill thousands of Americans, and then they did absolutely nothing in any way to prevent this huge attack from taking place. They even seemed to go out of their way to make sure nothing was done to prevent this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack. No one even bothered to alert the FBI, or step in to block the CIA and FBI HQ from shutting down investigations of known al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US.

What is the biggest horror story of all is that all of this is information is now in the public domain.
All of this is now all explained in much greater detail in a new book, "Prior Knowledge of 9/11".

The big question is why has the main stream media been deliberately hiding this information from the American public?

GO FIGURE!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
20. You, the People...
For not even putting up a fight in all these decades as the self-appointed covert policy mafia replaced even the potential of having a constitutional government. And for not being able to find Afghanistan on a map. And for pretending bullshit tastes like ice cream as it is shoved down your throat, for granting any legitimacy whatsoever to members of the corporate media and government propaganda teams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. I love the smell of self-righteous indignation in the morning. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Seven minutes: I must be so very important to you.
Apparently, no matter how trivial you deem my comments or how stupid my ideas, you're on a permanent patrol to ensure that, even when I'm out of this forum for a few weeks, I will post nothing without your instantly attaching a note of disdain. That's very flattering, however limited; you're one of my most dedicated readers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Is eleven hours better for you?
Why do you concern yourself at all with my posting habits? If you have a problem with them, you might get further hitting that alert button.

And if you don't get further that way, then shaddup about them. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Yeah right, who needs freedom as long as we're tolerated, huh bolo? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. do you believe 911 would have happened without
George W. Bush ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. RE: do you believe 911 would have happened without George W. Bush ?
Any normal human being would have done everything they could to prevent these horrific attacks and save all of those people who were killed on 9/11. GWB and his administration appears to have done everything they could to make sure the warnings of these attacks were completely ignored. Then they have done everything they could to make sure their culpability and the culpability of the CIA and FBI HQ for deliberately allowing these attacks to take place was covered up

GO FIGURE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
24. Can anyone put the warnings to Bush et all into a larger context?
For example, how many terror warnings were coming in during the timeframe of the August PDB? Were there 10,000 per day? 5 per week? Was there so much intelligence that the signal to noise ratio rendered them all garbage?

Did al Qaeda flood the available intelligence bandwidth with disinformation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. RE: Can anyone put the warnings to Bush et all into a larger context?
No on really knows outside of the CIA, but these warnings were all very specific indicating that a huge attack was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. These warning were so horrific that Tenet and Black called an emergency meeting right at the White with Rice and Clarke to alert Rice to the warnings of this huge attack. When Ashcroft received the exact same warnings a week later he quit flying commercial aircraft.

It is clear that these warnings were coming from Ussama Bin Laden himself while he was helping train new jihadists at Tarnack Farms just north east of Kandahar. It is also clear that at the end of July Mohammed Atef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed went to Tarnack Farms and told Bin Laden to keep quite. So at the end of July the warnings went stopped completely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Thanks Robert...
Why was UBL blabbing?

Also, do you know if Clarke is of the opinion that the WH wanted the attacks to happen, or if they were merely criminally negligent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. RE Flatulo Why was UBL blabbing
Edited on Sat May-10-08 03:11 PM by rschop
In this case he was providing inspiration to the new group of jihadists being trained at Tarnack Farms. By hinting at a huge attack inside of the US that would kill thousands he was demonstrating al Qaeda's claim to be the most maniacal and aggressive terrorist organization in the world.

The al Qaeda terrorists did not have a formal organizational chart or even a formal organization, but maintained their position as the most important terrorist organization in the world by hinting at future attacks and then actually carrying these attacks out.

Hinting at these attacks was always the al Qaeada way of doing business. UBL and al Qaeda in fact had issued the now famous Fatwa in February 23, 1998, a Fatwa published world wide, that clearly indicated that he intended and was determined to attack the US directly.

The CIA had come to the conclusion in 1998 that in fact this Fatwa had been a public declaration of war against the US, this information was given to President Clinton in 1999.

This declaration in fact had been written by Sheik Radmen, the blind cleric who had been in charge of the first bombing of the WTC Towers in 1993. In fact it turns out that Radmen was the spiritual leader of the al Qaeda terrorist organization.

If you knew the al Qaeada terrorist had declared war on the US in 1998, and that this was 10 years after they had started the al Qaeda terrorist organization, then it was inconceivable that you could not conclude that this meant that they were going to attack a huge target inside of the US, a target that had to be a huge symbolic target. The WTC Towers were just such a target, in fact the target that was clearly the most important target among all of the targets that could have been selected. When the USS Cole was attacked 9 months after an attempt was made to attack the USS The Sullivans at the exact same location, it was then completely obvious at that point to any one who could think at all that the al Qaead terrorist would go back after any target they have missed the first time, and therefore they were defiantly going back after the WCT Towers again.

Rick Rescorla the security chief for Morgan Stanley at the WTC Towers was so thoroughly convinced that the al Qaeda terrorists were going to return and attack the WTC Towers again but this time with hijacked aircraft that he held regular drills for all of the employees of MS so they would know what to do in the next attack.

The CIA claim that they did not know what the target or approximate dates of the attacks on 9/11 has no credibility especially when the information above is combined with all of the other information that the CIA had, especially the fact that they knew on June 12, 2001 that KSM was in charge of this operation, and knew the fact that the he had helped finance the first attack on the WTC Towers, and the fact that the basic plans for attacks on 9/11 were found on one of his associates computers, an associate who had taken part in the planning of the Bojinka plot.

The new book "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" has detailed on all of this information.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. RE: Also, do you know if Clarke is of the opinion that the WH wanted the attacks to happen...
Edited on Mon May-12-08 11:49 AM by rschop
Also, do you know if Clarke is of the opinion that the WH wanted the attacks to happen, or if they were merely criminally negligent?

Clarke appears to be the only person in the administration that did not want the attacks to succeed. He had issued several memos to that exact effect.

But it is impossible to know what he knew about White House wanting the attacks to happen, since he had been demoted and was out of the loop.

In fact he had been reduced to whimpering questions to Condoleezza Rice.

He had asked Rice in the summer of 2001 if she would get a priority list of the targets from Tenet, a list she apparently she never got. But this is a list most likely Tenet never would have produced anyway. He stated in testimony to the Armed Services committee meeting in the summer 2001, in answer to a direct question by Senator Carl Levin, "What is the priority list of targets the al Qaeda terrorists would want to attack? Tenet stated; "I can't give you a priority list, since I am responsible for all of the targets the al Qaeda terrorists would want to attack".

Just before the September 4, 2001 Principles meeting , the first principles meeting on the al Qaeda terrorists, Clarke sent a memo to Rice that said, "Someday when hundreds of Americans lay dead in many countries, the American people will ask if we could not have done more!"









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Monk Donating Member (271 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
31. we the people for allowing profiteering fascists to take power over us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
32. Condoleeza Rice
Responsibility for the disaster all falls on Condoleeza Rice, the National Security Adviser at the time. In theory, all of the high-level warnings on the subject crossed her desk. She should have been briefing the Vice President (even then it was apparent that the President himself was incapable of understanding or acting upon any complex information). She probably was. She should have used her position to ensure that the law enforcement and intelligence communities were fully aware of the situation. She didn't. In the aftermath of the event, Rice turned her position into a post of obfuscation and redirection, to shield the White House from being held accountable.

She should have been fired that day for allowing it to happen. Her promotion to Secretary of State is further circumstantial evidence of the Bush Administration's complicity in the crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rschop Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. RE: Condoleezza Rice
Edited on Mon May-12-08 05:56 PM by rschop
Rice was alerted directly by Tenet and Black on July 13, 2001 that a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. Instead of doing anything, she asked Tenet and Black to give the same information to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld which they did a week later. After receiving this information, Ashcroft was so terrified of being on a aircraft that would be hijacked by the al Qaeda terrorists that he immediately quit flying commercial aircraft, this was reported on CBS evening news world wide on July 26, 2001. So the warning were so specific that it was clear these terrorists would use hijacked aircraft in this huge attack.

But after 9/11 Rice said they had been warned but all of the warnings indicated that these attacks would take place outside of the US, so we now know what she said about the attack taking place outside of the US was nothing but a complete and total lie.

Rice clearly gave this information to the President, because now we know he then asked the CIA for a daily briefing paper that was given to him on August 6, 2001 on what the al Qaeda terrorists were up to. The President was told that Usama Bin laden was determined to attack inside of the US and that the FBI had uncovered surveillance of buildings in lower Manhattan that was consistent with these al Qaeda terrorists surveying buildings in order to select targets to be destroyed using hijacked aircraft. So what information did the President not have at this point.

We also now know that Tenet lied when asked if he talked to the President in August 2001 at the April 14, 2001 9-11 Commission public hearings. Both Bill Harlow, spokesman for the CIA said right after he gave his testimony, that Tenet had lied and Tenet in own book now says he had lied at these public hearings, he had talked to the President in August in fact he had flown down to Crawford, Texas to talk to the President.

But why would he lie in a public hearing when ultimately everyone would find out he had lied? He clearly was horrified that 9-11 Commissioner Tim Roemer would ask him if he had talked to the President in August then what did he tell the President about this huge attack. He was clearly terrified of being asked that one question, since no possible answer he could give would make the slightest bit of sense. If he was so terrified of being asked this question then what did he tell the President in August, just after he found out that Moussaoui, an al Qaeda terrorist, had just been arrested by the FBI, and that Mihdhar and Hazmi, two long time al Qaeda terrorists had just been found inside of the US and the CIA clearly knew they both were going to take part in the huge al Qaeda attack the CIA had received many warnings about since April 2001.

If the President knew, and it is now inconceivable that he did not, and did nothing, then what does that make our President?

But why has the main stream media not connected the dots on all of this now publicly available information? That is the big question.

GO FIGURE!










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. I tell ya, I get so confused....
I am reminded of that children's book in which a family lives on a one-acre farm, which a dishonest person sold them as eighteen acres--stacked on top of one another like flapjacks.

There are so many different versions of the Bush Administration's "truth," all of them suspect, and all piled on top of each other like so many piles of Shinola.

Thanks for your informative reply, which relies much more upon results than what those snakes were hissing at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
37. Lots of interesting foreknowledge issues discussed various places in this thread ...
... I'll need to research these further at some point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC