Showing posts with label 9/11 Attacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11 Attacks. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Osama chartered a plane after 9/11? OMG!
If this is true, it just adds to the already unfolding story of 9/11/01, and makes the official story even less believable than ever. It makes zero sense!
We go into Afghanistan, after a month has passed, to "get" Osama, but we fail and move onto Iraq, shifting money, troops and material to Iraq without so much as a "by you leave" from Congress .
Not only do we fail, but we seem to do so intentionally. You don't send troops of another nation to get the guy, whom, it is claimed, launched the biggest attack on American soil since the war of 1812. What kind of government would do that? The Bush government, apparently, but why?
A French newspaper, La Figaro, and they are sticking by their story, reported that Osama was in the American hospital in Dubai in July of 2001, receiving treatment for a kidney disease, where he was visited by a man known to be affiliated with the CIA. In July of 2001, Osama was an international criminal with a price on his head, for the bombing of American embassies, not to mention the U.S.S Cole. Did the W.H. not know about this? Why wasn't his plane shot down air on departure from the UAE? Why was a CIA operative visiting him at the hospital?
Osama is/was no doubt a religious squirrel. But we suspect that someone was feeding him a trail of nuts, which led straight to lower Manhattan and the Pentagon. Did Osama know about the military exercises that caused confusion on the morning of 9/11. If so, how did he know?
I cannot see where there has been any serious effort to bring Osama to justice, if he s still alive, and many believe he is not, including me. But he is irreplaceable to the Bush administration. How many gazillionaire Arabs, who are religious squirrels and who hate us are there? No many at the time of 9.11/01.
The same cannot be said now.
FBI knowingly allowed Osama to charter plane after 9/11
Submitted by Canada IFP on Wed, 2007-06-20 18:35.
FBI were aware that Osama bin Laden may have chartered one of the flights that took members of the bin Laden family out of the United States immediate after the 9/11 attacks, yet allowed the planes to depart, new Agency documents reveal.
The formerly confidential documents obtained by Judicial Watch through Freedom of Information Act and ongoing litigation states:
ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN…THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND.
Traffic control reports show that the plane was allowed to depart the United States after making four stops to pick up passengers, ultimately landing in Paris where all passengers disembarked on 9/20/01, according to the document.
FBI’s most recent document production includes details of the six flights between 9/14 and 9/24 that evacuated Saudi royals and bin Laden family members.
The documents also contain brief interview summaries and occasional notes from intelligence analysts concerning the cursory screening performed prior to the departures.
FBI did not consider a single Saudi national nor any of the bin Laden family members as possessing any information of investigative value.
According to Judicial Watch the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI’s investigation of the Saudi flights.
For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the “Bin Laden Family Flight”). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight.
“Eight days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Osama bin Laden possibly charters a flight to whisk his family out of the country, and it’s not worth more than a luggage search and a few brief interviews?” asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Clearly these documents prove the FBI conducted a slapdash investigation of these Saudi flights. We’ll never know how many investigative leads were lost due to the FBI’s lack of diligence.”
U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts ordered the FBI to resubmit “proper disclosures” to the Court and Judicial Watch, having previously criticized the adequacy of redaction descriptions, the validity of exemption claims, and other errors in the FBI’s disclosures. Incredibly, the FBI had previously redacted Osama bin Laden’s name from the records in order “to protect privacy interests.”
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Monday, May 21, 2007
Why is Larry Elder Shocked?
Mr. Elder is shocked....just shocked, I tell you, because a vast number of Democrats, in a recent Rasmussen poll, indicated that they either believe that Junior knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened or say they are unsure.
Why would anyone find this shocking?
In a Zogby poll taken in New York, just prior to the GOP convention in NYC, August, 2004, over 30% of Republicans said they had a similar belief.
One does not have to believe the far out conspiracy theories floating around the Net to believe that Bush (and/or a high-ranking official or officials in this administration) knew the attacks were coming and did nothing to stop them.)
I have no way of knowing what the poll questions were, how they were ordered or anything like that, but if a pollster asked me if I believed that Junior had prior knowledge, this independent would say, yes.
Why?
Because he had been warned. We know that. That fact is in the record and has gone uncontested by this White House. The administration had been warned, on occasions to numerous to list in this post.
And yes, even though Condi says that no one could have imagined that planes would be used as flying bombs, they had been warned of this possibility as well.
They were warned of the possibility with regard to the G-8 in Genoa in June of 2001. Who warned them? Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. What's more, they did not discount the warning. Junior spent every night of the conference on a U.S. Naval vessel off the coast of Italy. They knew!
One careful read of Paul Thompson's Timeline, which is carefully composed of contemporaneus reporting from legitimate, trustworthy press and electronic media, is enough to convince me, especially when considered in light of everything this administration has done since then.
I defy anyone to read Thompson's timeline and say they are anything but convinced that the White House was warned and went deaf.
The NeoCons, by their own admission in the PNAC manifesto, needed a "New Pearl Harbor," Mr. Elder, and they got one.
Just a coincidence? O.K. I'm reasonable.
But how many coincidences would it take to cause your eyebrows to go up?
Just wondering, because there are plenty more where that one came from?
While studying psychology in college, I read about an experiment on the pressure to conform.
Several people sat around a long, rectangular table. The "instructor" and all but one person seated at the table were confederates in the experiment. The instructor held up a sheet of paper with a line drawn exactly six inches long. He then handed the sheet to a seated confederate and said, "Guess the length of this line."
The man, as previously agreed, said, "About two inches." The paper then went clockwise around the table until it reached the only person not in on the experiment. Until then, each person "guessed" anywhere from two to three-and-a-half inches, even though the line was obviously much, much longer.
When the paper was slid to the final person — the only one not in on the ruse — he, too, said, "About three inches."
Perhaps this explains a recent poll put out by the "non-partisan" Rasmussen Reports. A mind-blowing 35 percent of Democrats believe the president possessed prior knowledge of the 9/11 terror attacks that killed over 3,000 Americans. Another 26 percent of Democrats said that they are "not sure." Thus 61 percent of Democrats believe or consider themselves uncertain about the assertion that the president knew in advance about the terror attacks of 9/11, yet did nothing to stop them.
Now I've long since accepted that many Democrats flat-out hate the president. Democrats, for example, far more so than Republicans, believe in the idea that government must "level the playing field." So Democrats oppose tax cuts that "help the rich." I strongly disagree, but I get it.
Because Republicans — more so than Democrats — believe in limited government, they stand accused of selfishness. This argument, too, I at least understand. Never mind that in the recent book, "Who Really Cares?," Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks found Republicans gave more to charity — in both time and money — than Democrats. It turns out that if one supports smaller government, he or she is more likely to feel the need to step in and help the needy by donating time and money. Also, the more religious the person, found Brooks, the more likely he or she gives to charity. Religious Democrats gave as much as religious Republicans, but Democrats as a whole were less religious than Republicans. Some secular Democrats feel uncomfortable with a religious president, whom they feel "gets his guidance from God." So I can understand the discomfort of the Democrats with the president's religiosity.
On the issue of global warming, many Democrats side with Al Gore' , who believes the "debate on global warming is over." They find it obscene that the president objects to a worldwide accord to deal with the "crisis." I believe they're wrong, but this, too, I get. If the scientists all agree, why this leaves only the dissenting global-warming-denying, gas-guzzling, smoke-stack-belching capitalists.
Health care is a "right," so says former presidential candidate John Kerry .
Most Democrats nod in agreement. Never mind that of the 46 million people in America who lack health-care insurance, about half go without health care for only a few months, while they are between jobs. About three-quarters go without health care for less than a year. And 10 percent have high-paying jobs, but choose to pocket the money they would spend on insurance premiums. Millions more without health-care insurance came here illegally. But at least I get the Democrats' objection to government "failure" to provide health-care insurance.
As to the war in Iraq most Democrats oppose it. Most Republicans, however, still support the war, and still think victory possible. Only two House Republicans supported the war-funding-with-troop-withdrawal-deadlines legislation passed, at the end of April, by Congress. In the Senate, two Republicans voted for it.
This complicated war now approaches its fifth year, with nearly daily headlines of setbacks and American military deaths. We awaken nearly every morning to headlines of American military deaths and Iraqi sectarian violence. The current Iraqi government appears confused and ineffective; and the international chorus calling Iraq a "blunder" grows louder and louder. Thus, I get the Democrats' anger towards Bush's "stubbornness" for continuing to prosecute the war despite near worldwide opposition and the dwindling number of allies, including the British.
But do 61 percent of Democrats "honestly" believe the president "allowed" 9/11 to occur, taking no measure whatsoever to stop it? Please tell me this reflects an insincere desire to simply conform rather than a sincere belief that the president willingly allowed over 3,000 Americans to perish. Tell me you say this with your fingers crossed.
Please.
Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk-show host and author. His nationally syndicated radio program airs 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. PST and can also be heard on X-M and Sirius satellite radio. To find out more about Larry Elder, visit his web page at www.larryelder.com.
CREATORS SYNDICATE COPYRIGHT 2007 LAURENCE A. ELDER
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Why would anyone find this shocking?
In a Zogby poll taken in New York, just prior to the GOP convention in NYC, August, 2004, over 30% of Republicans said they had a similar belief.
One does not have to believe the far out conspiracy theories floating around the Net to believe that Bush (and/or a high-ranking official or officials in this administration) knew the attacks were coming and did nothing to stop them.)
I have no way of knowing what the poll questions were, how they were ordered or anything like that, but if a pollster asked me if I believed that Junior had prior knowledge, this independent would say, yes.
Why?
Because he had been warned. We know that. That fact is in the record and has gone uncontested by this White House. The administration had been warned, on occasions to numerous to list in this post.
And yes, even though Condi says that no one could have imagined that planes would be used as flying bombs, they had been warned of this possibility as well.
They were warned of the possibility with regard to the G-8 in Genoa in June of 2001. Who warned them? Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. What's more, they did not discount the warning. Junior spent every night of the conference on a U.S. Naval vessel off the coast of Italy. They knew!
One careful read of Paul Thompson's Timeline, which is carefully composed of contemporaneus reporting from legitimate, trustworthy press and electronic media, is enough to convince me, especially when considered in light of everything this administration has done since then.
I defy anyone to read Thompson's timeline and say they are anything but convinced that the White House was warned and went deaf.
The NeoCons, by their own admission in the PNAC manifesto, needed a "New Pearl Harbor," Mr. Elder, and they got one.
Just a coincidence? O.K. I'm reasonable.
But how many coincidences would it take to cause your eyebrows to go up?
Just wondering, because there are plenty more where that one came from?
While studying psychology in college, I read about an experiment on the pressure to conform.
Several people sat around a long, rectangular table. The "instructor" and all but one person seated at the table were confederates in the experiment. The instructor held up a sheet of paper with a line drawn exactly six inches long. He then handed the sheet to a seated confederate and said, "Guess the length of this line."
The man, as previously agreed, said, "About two inches." The paper then went clockwise around the table until it reached the only person not in on the experiment. Until then, each person "guessed" anywhere from two to three-and-a-half inches, even though the line was obviously much, much longer.
When the paper was slid to the final person — the only one not in on the ruse — he, too, said, "About three inches."
Perhaps this explains a recent poll put out by the "non-partisan" Rasmussen Reports. A mind-blowing 35 percent of Democrats believe the president possessed prior knowledge of the 9/11 terror attacks that killed over 3,000 Americans. Another 26 percent of Democrats said that they are "not sure." Thus 61 percent of Democrats believe or consider themselves uncertain about the assertion that the president knew in advance about the terror attacks of 9/11, yet did nothing to stop them.
Now I've long since accepted that many Democrats flat-out hate the president. Democrats, for example, far more so than Republicans, believe in the idea that government must "level the playing field." So Democrats oppose tax cuts that "help the rich." I strongly disagree, but I get it.
Because Republicans — more so than Democrats — believe in limited government, they stand accused of selfishness. This argument, too, I at least understand. Never mind that in the recent book, "Who Really Cares?," Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks found Republicans gave more to charity — in both time and money — than Democrats. It turns out that if one supports smaller government, he or she is more likely to feel the need to step in and help the needy by donating time and money. Also, the more religious the person, found Brooks, the more likely he or she gives to charity. Religious Democrats gave as much as religious Republicans, but Democrats as a whole were less religious than Republicans. Some secular Democrats feel uncomfortable with a religious president, whom they feel "gets his guidance from God." So I can understand the discomfort of the Democrats with the president's religiosity.
On the issue of global warming, many Democrats side with Al Gore' , who believes the "debate on global warming is over." They find it obscene that the president objects to a worldwide accord to deal with the "crisis." I believe they're wrong, but this, too, I get. If the scientists all agree, why this leaves only the dissenting global-warming-denying, gas-guzzling, smoke-stack-belching capitalists.
Health care is a "right," so says former presidential candidate John Kerry .
Most Democrats nod in agreement. Never mind that of the 46 million people in America who lack health-care insurance, about half go without health care for only a few months, while they are between jobs. About three-quarters go without health care for less than a year. And 10 percent have high-paying jobs, but choose to pocket the money they would spend on insurance premiums. Millions more without health-care insurance came here illegally. But at least I get the Democrats' objection to government "failure" to provide health-care insurance.
As to the war in Iraq most Democrats oppose it. Most Republicans, however, still support the war, and still think victory possible. Only two House Republicans supported the war-funding-with-troop-withdrawal-deadlines legislation passed, at the end of April, by Congress. In the Senate, two Republicans voted for it.
This complicated war now approaches its fifth year, with nearly daily headlines of setbacks and American military deaths. We awaken nearly every morning to headlines of American military deaths and Iraqi sectarian violence. The current Iraqi government appears confused and ineffective; and the international chorus calling Iraq a "blunder" grows louder and louder. Thus, I get the Democrats' anger towards Bush's "stubbornness" for continuing to prosecute the war despite near worldwide opposition and the dwindling number of allies, including the British.
But do 61 percent of Democrats "honestly" believe the president "allowed" 9/11 to occur, taking no measure whatsoever to stop it? Please tell me this reflects an insincere desire to simply conform rather than a sincere belief that the president willingly allowed over 3,000 Americans to perish. Tell me you say this with your fingers crossed.
Please.
Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk-show host and author. His nationally syndicated radio program airs 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. PST and can also be heard on X-M and Sirius satellite radio. To find out more about Larry Elder, visit his web page at www.larryelder.com.
CREATORS SYNDICATE COPYRIGHT 2007 LAURENCE A. ELDER
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Coleen Rowley Goes After Tenet
How Will You Look Yourself In The Mirror, Mr. Tenet?
AP
And what will you see?
A gleaming presidential medal, the $4 million from your lucrative book deal or just 30 pieces of dirty silver? Your soul is worth more than these things so please stop selling it. Your original mistakes and weaknesses could be forgiven so much easier if you would just honestly admit them instead of continuing these deceptive cat and mouse interviews on TV that, in the end, do nothing but compound your original errors.
Yesterday on Meet the Press you told Tim Russert that there was no "texture" to the pre 9-11 threat reporting despite the "system blinking red" and despite your "hair (being) on fire" which resulted in your emergency meeting with Condoleeza Rice in mid July and the CIA's Presidential Daily Brief given to President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001 entitled, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." Then, even more disingenuously, you added that "everything went silent" in August 2001.
How could you forget, former DCI Tenet, that on August 23, 2001, you were briefed about the Moussaoui case in a power point briefing titled, "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly." You were told among other things: that Moussaoui wanted to learn to fly a 747, paid for his training in cash, was interested to learn the doors do not open in flight, and wanted to fly a simulated flight from London to New York. You were also told that the FBI had arrested Moussaoui because of a visa overstay and that the CIA was working the case with the FBI. One of the documents given to you even had Bin Laden's picture on it! And the CIA held successive briefings about Moussaoui: August 27th, 2001, with the deputy director of operations; August 28th, 2001, with the executive director of the CIA; August 30, 2001 with the director of Central Intelligence; September 4th, with the executive director of the CIA; and September 10th, with the deputy director of operations (see Moussaoui defense exhibits 660, 670, 671,672,673, and 674). So how can you say "everything went silent" in August?!
Certainly your lack of pre 9-11 action after all this is hard to explain and something you'd like to forget. Your excuses that "the president is not the action officer" or "all I can tell you is, it wasn't the appropriate place. I just can't take you any farther than that" (for why you did not alert others during an early September 2001 Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism) are pretty weak. A lot could have been done in those remaining 18 days had you taken some action. Bolting our airline cockpit doors, for example, something Israeli airlines already did and which would have cost only an estimated $900 per door, would have been logical and could have foiled the suicide hijackers.
But when this information about the August 23rd power point briefing was dragged out of you by the 9-11 Commission, you claimed, oddly enough, that you made no connection between Moussaoui's presence in the United States and the earlier threat reporting. You did, however, according to news reports, make the connection very quickly on the morning of 9-11. In fact it was reported to be the first thing out of your mouth that morning upon learning of planes flying into the World Trade Center.
Why was it that the information about the August 23rd briefing--about the only Al Qaeda terrorist to be thus far prosecuted and convicted of the 9-11 conspiracy in the United States--had to be practically dragged out of you by the 9-11 Commission?
Sadly, Mr. Tenet, this inconsistency is just the beginning of your larger, tragic sellout in attempting to defend the indefensible, helping the Bush administration make its public case to go to war against Iraq. You still obviously mistake a "marketing campaign" for the truth and ego-defense mechanisms for conscience.
Even more sadly, you are not the first who has left the Bush Administration who feels compelled to cover up everything to continue to make money. Full page, several thousand dollar ads of Zig Ziglar next to a smiling "Legendary Soldier-Statesman" General Colin Powell as part of Ziglar's "Get Motivated" Seminar have begun appearing almost daily in our Twin City newspapers. For $225 per person, the Ziglar-Powell seminar promises "Motivation! Inspiration! Career Skills! (and) Wealth Building!" but alas no truth.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
AP
And what will you see?
A gleaming presidential medal, the $4 million from your lucrative book deal or just 30 pieces of dirty silver? Your soul is worth more than these things so please stop selling it. Your original mistakes and weaknesses could be forgiven so much easier if you would just honestly admit them instead of continuing these deceptive cat and mouse interviews on TV that, in the end, do nothing but compound your original errors.
Yesterday on Meet the Press you told Tim Russert that there was no "texture" to the pre 9-11 threat reporting despite the "system blinking red" and despite your "hair (being) on fire" which resulted in your emergency meeting with Condoleeza Rice in mid July and the CIA's Presidential Daily Brief given to President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001 entitled, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." Then, even more disingenuously, you added that "everything went silent" in August 2001.
How could you forget, former DCI Tenet, that on August 23, 2001, you were briefed about the Moussaoui case in a power point briefing titled, "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly." You were told among other things: that Moussaoui wanted to learn to fly a 747, paid for his training in cash, was interested to learn the doors do not open in flight, and wanted to fly a simulated flight from London to New York. You were also told that the FBI had arrested Moussaoui because of a visa overstay and that the CIA was working the case with the FBI. One of the documents given to you even had Bin Laden's picture on it! And the CIA held successive briefings about Moussaoui: August 27th, 2001, with the deputy director of operations; August 28th, 2001, with the executive director of the CIA; August 30, 2001 with the director of Central Intelligence; September 4th, with the executive director of the CIA; and September 10th, with the deputy director of operations (see Moussaoui defense exhibits 660, 670, 671,672,673, and 674). So how can you say "everything went silent" in August?!
Certainly your lack of pre 9-11 action after all this is hard to explain and something you'd like to forget. Your excuses that "the president is not the action officer" or "all I can tell you is, it wasn't the appropriate place. I just can't take you any farther than that" (for why you did not alert others during an early September 2001 Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism) are pretty weak. A lot could have been done in those remaining 18 days had you taken some action. Bolting our airline cockpit doors, for example, something Israeli airlines already did and which would have cost only an estimated $900 per door, would have been logical and could have foiled the suicide hijackers.
But when this information about the August 23rd power point briefing was dragged out of you by the 9-11 Commission, you claimed, oddly enough, that you made no connection between Moussaoui's presence in the United States and the earlier threat reporting. You did, however, according to news reports, make the connection very quickly on the morning of 9-11. In fact it was reported to be the first thing out of your mouth that morning upon learning of planes flying into the World Trade Center.
Why was it that the information about the August 23rd briefing--about the only Al Qaeda terrorist to be thus far prosecuted and convicted of the 9-11 conspiracy in the United States--had to be practically dragged out of you by the 9-11 Commission?
Sadly, Mr. Tenet, this inconsistency is just the beginning of your larger, tragic sellout in attempting to defend the indefensible, helping the Bush administration make its public case to go to war against Iraq. You still obviously mistake a "marketing campaign" for the truth and ego-defense mechanisms for conscience.
Even more sadly, you are not the first who has left the Bush Administration who feels compelled to cover up everything to continue to make money. Full page, several thousand dollar ads of Zig Ziglar next to a smiling "Legendary Soldier-Statesman" General Colin Powell as part of Ziglar's "Get Motivated" Seminar have begun appearing almost daily in our Twin City newspapers. For $225 per person, the Ziglar-Powell seminar promises "Motivation! Inspiration! Career Skills! (and) Wealth Building!" but alas no truth.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Friday, April 27, 2007
Hey, Rudy: How are Those Psych Tests Coming?
Message to Rudy Giuliani: Are you certifiably insane?
By Mary MacElveen
April 26, 2007
I could not believe the lunacy coming from Rudy Giuliani’s when he said, "But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have. If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer." He said that to place fear in all of us if a Democrat is elected president in 2008. Hey, Mr. Giuliani, I for one am tired of the fear-mongering. Like most Americans and the polls show it, we want to live free, breathe free and have hope restored to all of us. We are tired of the bondage of fear, Mr. Giuliani.
If one looks back President Bush’s speech on the U.S.S. Lincoln in which the sign “Mission Accomplished” hung in the back ground, his only accomplished mission was to place fear in the citizenry. He has turned America into a country that no longer represents the model long ago promised all of us by our founding fathers.
Thanks to his Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Act, he stripped our sacred document known as the United States Constitution. With his signing into law both Patriot Acts and the latter Military Commissions Act, he turned a free country into a state that models one being led by a dictator. After all, we know he often refers to himself as “the decider” In essence what he showed in signing those acts into law, is that Osama bin Laden and the terrorists that attacked us indeed won.
Speaking of bin Laden, Keith Olbermann compared that statement made by Giuliani to any number of fearful messages coming from bin Laden. I do not want a president that resembles a terrorist.
Speaking of casualties being felt by our men and women in the armed services in which nine died this past weekend due to a suicide car-bomb, I for one am tired of America’s blood and treasure being sacrificed for this present Republican administration. In my last piece in which I spoke of their deaths, I cited how President Bush attended the Virginia Tech convocation, but never attended one single military funeral.
In my email box this morning a striking email was sent to me by a soldier that has served in Iraq in which he said to me, “The war has been going on for so long that it is no longer fore front news, it's horrible to think that people would get sick of see what our boys are doing, but they do.” He also said that he would not want the president or the media to show up at his funeral because it is a time to mourn those lost by family and friends and without the interruption of his presence at it. I can respect that.
In promulgating this war and with the help of the media in past years and even in the present they do not deserve to attend any funeral of a soldier whose life has been cut short.
I think that America is thirsting for a new leadership to stave off these casualties, but not do so in a defensive way as Giuliani alluded to. It is through the act of diplomacy. Diplomacy has not been present within this Republican administration, only the use of force. I have often said any dummy can drop a bomb. Senator John F. Kerry stated in speech when he said he would not be running in 2008, we have to get back to the “heavy diplomatic lifting” as he targeted the Bush administration concerning Iran.
I think in order to stave off further loss of life our soldiers, we need an administration that says to its diplomats, you will not come home until we have brokered a deal for a long and lasting peace.
We cannot remain addicted to war-mongering if we are to survive as a human race and we must end this addiction to it. Those that do support it are in need of some serious rehab.
Should we stay the course through another Republican administration in which anyone of these Republican candidates will continue this war in Iraq; the casualty rate will continue to rise as each day passes. I say that of the Republican candidates because I do not hear any message coming from them that they will take this country in a new direction and divorce themselves from Bush’s brand of fear and war-mongering.
It has been reported by The Lancet that over 600,000 innocent Iraqis have died who did nothing to us to deserve this and we have displaced millions of Iraqis. Guess where the new wave of those that may wish to do us harm will come from? I have often spoken of the blow-back effect and should we keep on this present course, I believe a ticking time-bomb has been set and just awaits the American people.
Keith Olbermann in his on-air commentary said, “Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq, than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?” add to that the number of Iraqis killed as mentioned above. I have often said that the Iraqi people have suffered a 9/11 event from the inception of this illegal war on a daily basis for over four years now. It is time for new leadership in Washington D.C. to stop this slaughter of these innocent people.
Giuliani has stated that by electing a Democrat, it will take us back to a pre-9/11 way of thinking. If anything, I want to go back to a pre-December 12th, 2000 way of thinking. That is the day that the Supreme Court handed down the Bush V. Gore decision that handed this presidency over to Bush. I want the right to have every vote counted. Our democracy and the furtherance of it demand it. Our soldiers protect that freedom and for anyone to usurp the will of the people diminishes our soldiers in the eyes of the American people.
On September 11th, 2001, this is what America’s mayor Giuliani had to say "I turned to Bernie, and I said, Thank God George Bush is our President” Note to Giuliani, God had nothing to do with him being our president, five of the nine black-robed injustices did.
I would give anything to go back in time in which the Supreme Court stayed out of this case in which one of the terms used in handing down that decision was the “irreparable harm to George W. Bush” When I heard that phrase and knowing what has transpired since, I have often asked; well what about the rest of us?
Perhaps with a President Gore in power he could have implemented many of the findings in the commission he chaired on Aviation Safety and Security. In that commission report, please take note of this passage, “Although the threat of terrorism is increasing, the danger of an individual becoming a victim of a terrorist attack -- let alone an aircraft bombing -- will doubtless remain very small. But terrorism isn't merely a matter of statistics. We fear a plane crash far more than we fear something like a car accident. One might survive a car accident, but there's no chance in a plane at 30,000 feet. This fear is one of the reasons that terrorists see airplanes as attractive targets. And, they know that airlines are often seen as national symbols.” While addressing this fear and easing the minds of the American people, he did foresee within this one report that planes would be seen as attractive targets.
You will be amazed as you read this Hardball transcript where it states, “Condoleezza Rice today said that she’d never been briefed on planes being used as missiles. She reiterated that today, even though we know that Richard Clarke – and this has been uncontested – had prepared as far back as 1996 for planes being used as missiles at the Atlanta Olympics.” There is that familiar name, meaning, Richard Clarke who tried to warn President Bush of impending threats coming from al Qaeda. Maybe if Rice had read the complete commission report chaired by Al Gore, she would have been brought up to speed.
Much was lost to all Americans when within that commission report chaired by former Vice President Gore, when it stated, “When terrorists attack an American airliner, they are attacking the United States. They have so little respect for our values -- so little regard for human life or the principles of justice that are the foundation of American society -- that they would destroy innocent children and devoted mothers and fathers completely at random. This cannot be tolerated, or allowed to intimidate free societies. There must be a concerted national will to fight terrorism. There must be a willingness to apply sustained economic, political and commercial pressure on countries sponsoring terrorists. There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice. There must be the resolve to punish those who would violate sanctions imposed against terrorist states.”
I have heard from people throughout these past six going on seven years that Al Gore if he were allowed to go on and become our president would have been soft on terrorism. Oh please look again at what he said in this commission report. He had the forethought and knowledge that this could be done by terrorists. By the way, this report came out on February 12th, 1997. This report could have been used to help stop the attacks we all felt on September 11th, 2001. This report could have been used to save both American and Iraqi lives. It could have been used to save the lives of our soldiers which now total over 3,300 who have lost their lives in Iraq.
When Gore mentioned, “There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice” through those commission findings, in juxtaposition we have this statement coming from President Bush when he shouted out through that bullhorn at Ground Zero, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." One must ask; well have they heard us? No, because this president targeted the wrong people. He has failed at capturing Osama bin Laden. To show the stupidity of this present Republican administration, Bush promised to capture Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” which turned into, “I do not know where he is, he is not important and is not our priority” Yet, Giuliani wants this brand of leadership to continue? What are you certifiably insane, Rudy?
I do believe if Al Gore went onto become our president, he would have paid attention to the Hart/Rudman report on terrorism. He would have paid attention to a counter-terrorism expert in Richard Clarke who warned President Bush of the impending threat of al Qaeda. You would not have seen a President Gore fix the intelligence to meet any plans on attacking Iraq. You would not have seen a CIA agent in Valerie Plame being outed in a Gore administration.
While I have not stated which candidate I would back for the 2008 Democratic nomination, if Al Gore were to say at some point, “I am willing to fight for you; are you with me?” as he stated at the 2000 Democratic National Convention that would seal the deal for me. I once said of Al Gore, “I thirst to drink from the cup of intelligence” that is because we have seen anything but during this present Republican administration.
Author's note: To contact me, my address is, xmjmac@optonline.net
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
By Mary MacElveen
April 26, 2007
I could not believe the lunacy coming from Rudy Giuliani’s when he said, "But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have. If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer." He said that to place fear in all of us if a Democrat is elected president in 2008. Hey, Mr. Giuliani, I for one am tired of the fear-mongering. Like most Americans and the polls show it, we want to live free, breathe free and have hope restored to all of us. We are tired of the bondage of fear, Mr. Giuliani.
If one looks back President Bush’s speech on the U.S.S. Lincoln in which the sign “Mission Accomplished” hung in the back ground, his only accomplished mission was to place fear in the citizenry. He has turned America into a country that no longer represents the model long ago promised all of us by our founding fathers.
Thanks to his Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Act, he stripped our sacred document known as the United States Constitution. With his signing into law both Patriot Acts and the latter Military Commissions Act, he turned a free country into a state that models one being led by a dictator. After all, we know he often refers to himself as “the decider” In essence what he showed in signing those acts into law, is that Osama bin Laden and the terrorists that attacked us indeed won.
Speaking of bin Laden, Keith Olbermann compared that statement made by Giuliani to any number of fearful messages coming from bin Laden. I do not want a president that resembles a terrorist.
Speaking of casualties being felt by our men and women in the armed services in which nine died this past weekend due to a suicide car-bomb, I for one am tired of America’s blood and treasure being sacrificed for this present Republican administration. In my last piece in which I spoke of their deaths, I cited how President Bush attended the Virginia Tech convocation, but never attended one single military funeral.
In my email box this morning a striking email was sent to me by a soldier that has served in Iraq in which he said to me, “The war has been going on for so long that it is no longer fore front news, it's horrible to think that people would get sick of see what our boys are doing, but they do.” He also said that he would not want the president or the media to show up at his funeral because it is a time to mourn those lost by family and friends and without the interruption of his presence at it. I can respect that.
In promulgating this war and with the help of the media in past years and even in the present they do not deserve to attend any funeral of a soldier whose life has been cut short.
I think that America is thirsting for a new leadership to stave off these casualties, but not do so in a defensive way as Giuliani alluded to. It is through the act of diplomacy. Diplomacy has not been present within this Republican administration, only the use of force. I have often said any dummy can drop a bomb. Senator John F. Kerry stated in speech when he said he would not be running in 2008, we have to get back to the “heavy diplomatic lifting” as he targeted the Bush administration concerning Iran.
I think in order to stave off further loss of life our soldiers, we need an administration that says to its diplomats, you will not come home until we have brokered a deal for a long and lasting peace.
We cannot remain addicted to war-mongering if we are to survive as a human race and we must end this addiction to it. Those that do support it are in need of some serious rehab.
Should we stay the course through another Republican administration in which anyone of these Republican candidates will continue this war in Iraq; the casualty rate will continue to rise as each day passes. I say that of the Republican candidates because I do not hear any message coming from them that they will take this country in a new direction and divorce themselves from Bush’s brand of fear and war-mongering.
It has been reported by The Lancet that over 600,000 innocent Iraqis have died who did nothing to us to deserve this and we have displaced millions of Iraqis. Guess where the new wave of those that may wish to do us harm will come from? I have often spoken of the blow-back effect and should we keep on this present course, I believe a ticking time-bomb has been set and just awaits the American people.
Keith Olbermann in his on-air commentary said, “Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq, than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?” add to that the number of Iraqis killed as mentioned above. I have often said that the Iraqi people have suffered a 9/11 event from the inception of this illegal war on a daily basis for over four years now. It is time for new leadership in Washington D.C. to stop this slaughter of these innocent people.
Giuliani has stated that by electing a Democrat, it will take us back to a pre-9/11 way of thinking. If anything, I want to go back to a pre-December 12th, 2000 way of thinking. That is the day that the Supreme Court handed down the Bush V. Gore decision that handed this presidency over to Bush. I want the right to have every vote counted. Our democracy and the furtherance of it demand it. Our soldiers protect that freedom and for anyone to usurp the will of the people diminishes our soldiers in the eyes of the American people.
On September 11th, 2001, this is what America’s mayor Giuliani had to say "I turned to Bernie, and I said, Thank God George Bush is our President” Note to Giuliani, God had nothing to do with him being our president, five of the nine black-robed injustices did.
I would give anything to go back in time in which the Supreme Court stayed out of this case in which one of the terms used in handing down that decision was the “irreparable harm to George W. Bush” When I heard that phrase and knowing what has transpired since, I have often asked; well what about the rest of us?
Perhaps with a President Gore in power he could have implemented many of the findings in the commission he chaired on Aviation Safety and Security. In that commission report, please take note of this passage, “Although the threat of terrorism is increasing, the danger of an individual becoming a victim of a terrorist attack -- let alone an aircraft bombing -- will doubtless remain very small. But terrorism isn't merely a matter of statistics. We fear a plane crash far more than we fear something like a car accident. One might survive a car accident, but there's no chance in a plane at 30,000 feet. This fear is one of the reasons that terrorists see airplanes as attractive targets. And, they know that airlines are often seen as national symbols.” While addressing this fear and easing the minds of the American people, he did foresee within this one report that planes would be seen as attractive targets.
You will be amazed as you read this Hardball transcript where it states, “Condoleezza Rice today said that she’d never been briefed on planes being used as missiles. She reiterated that today, even though we know that Richard Clarke – and this has been uncontested – had prepared as far back as 1996 for planes being used as missiles at the Atlanta Olympics.” There is that familiar name, meaning, Richard Clarke who tried to warn President Bush of impending threats coming from al Qaeda. Maybe if Rice had read the complete commission report chaired by Al Gore, she would have been brought up to speed.
Much was lost to all Americans when within that commission report chaired by former Vice President Gore, when it stated, “When terrorists attack an American airliner, they are attacking the United States. They have so little respect for our values -- so little regard for human life or the principles of justice that are the foundation of American society -- that they would destroy innocent children and devoted mothers and fathers completely at random. This cannot be tolerated, or allowed to intimidate free societies. There must be a concerted national will to fight terrorism. There must be a willingness to apply sustained economic, political and commercial pressure on countries sponsoring terrorists. There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice. There must be the resolve to punish those who would violate sanctions imposed against terrorist states.”
I have heard from people throughout these past six going on seven years that Al Gore if he were allowed to go on and become our president would have been soft on terrorism. Oh please look again at what he said in this commission report. He had the forethought and knowledge that this could be done by terrorists. By the way, this report came out on February 12th, 1997. This report could have been used to help stop the attacks we all felt on September 11th, 2001. This report could have been used to save both American and Iraqi lives. It could have been used to save the lives of our soldiers which now total over 3,300 who have lost their lives in Iraq.
When Gore mentioned, “There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice” through those commission findings, in juxtaposition we have this statement coming from President Bush when he shouted out through that bullhorn at Ground Zero, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." One must ask; well have they heard us? No, because this president targeted the wrong people. He has failed at capturing Osama bin Laden. To show the stupidity of this present Republican administration, Bush promised to capture Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” which turned into, “I do not know where he is, he is not important and is not our priority” Yet, Giuliani wants this brand of leadership to continue? What are you certifiably insane, Rudy?
I do believe if Al Gore went onto become our president, he would have paid attention to the Hart/Rudman report on terrorism. He would have paid attention to a counter-terrorism expert in Richard Clarke who warned President Bush of the impending threat of al Qaeda. You would not have seen a President Gore fix the intelligence to meet any plans on attacking Iraq. You would not have seen a CIA agent in Valerie Plame being outed in a Gore administration.
While I have not stated which candidate I would back for the 2008 Democratic nomination, if Al Gore were to say at some point, “I am willing to fight for you; are you with me?” as he stated at the 2000 Democratic National Convention that would seal the deal for me. I once said of Al Gore, “I thirst to drink from the cup of intelligence” that is because we have seen anything but during this present Republican administration.
Author's note: To contact me, my address is, xmjmac@optonline.net
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
