The BuzzFlash Mailbag
May 17, 2002 - Bush and 9/11 Edition, Part II
How can you tell Ari and Bush aren't lying? Easy, when their lips aren't moving.
need to put this link
I know there has to be a connection between Ashcroft's decision to stop flying commercial airlines and the terrorism warnings we now know for sure he received.
D. Kime, Jr.
Re: A BuzzFlash Reader Commentary: Bush Vacationed While They Planned
Last summer, the Little Dictator traveled through Europe announcing his plans to invalidate every international treaty and move toward an era of isolation, a nation whose only interest internationally was to be based on the direct interest of his corporate empire.
In July or August remember the shock and the stunned response to the abandonment of the Missile treaties with Russia and the plan to begin anew development of the Star War defense. When China interjected they would begin again missile testing, the impostor told them to go ahead that he would sell them parts and information. This had all the appearances of a playground bully saying, "If you don't like it, do something about it." This was a precursor for bad times to come indeed.
Now comes the revelation that indirect advance warning was given to administration officials and FBI warnings were issued about suspects in flight schools in Arizona. All the while the GOP is hawking photos of a coward on the phone asking if it was safe to come home, stating this photo is part of the making of the president. If these phony patriots had any love for our nation they would be ashamed of themselves.
Maybe we Democrats should issue one of President Clinton rushing back home from Australia to be with his fellow citizens in their time of pain and loss. Or a photo of Jimmy Carter in Havana saying in effect, "Stop the insanity! Stop the lying! Stop the hatemongering!"
Dear Mr. Sanger,
I am curious as to how your story's lead paragraph squares with a story published last September 13th, 2001, by Newsbytes, and reposted by The Washington Post Company, that appears at first, second and third glance to counter yours.
Specifically, I refer to your reporting that the Bush administration's current protestations -- as relayed by Ari Fleischer -- had no idea that its intelligence warnings referred to anything more than ordinary hijackings. [Are there such things?]
Please see below for links to the complete articles, both yours and Ned Stafford's in Newsbytes, parts of which I have included here only to highlight the disparities.
Let's see, 8 months after September 11, the Bush Administrations lets it out of the bag, that yes they received a warning prior to the attacks, BUT, the threat was so vague, they had no idea of what was about to take place. Let us not forget they thought it would be a hijacking in the "normal sense" of the word.
Ok, so Tom Ridge wants billions of dollars for Homeland Security. What would be the easiest way to get this money? Let's say that we had information. Each agency had information and we couldn't put the pieces together, because the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. We need to centralize to one location, therefore we won't have so much miscommunication.
Admitting they knew without culpability. You can bet that what's really in those memos will never get out. That they were warned about the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, but chose not to act on it.....
LIVE, AT THIS WRITING
In the face of press questioning, Ari continues repeating "information of a generalized nature was passed on."
Why didn't Bush admit there were hijack warnings?
Why didn't Cheney admit there were hijack warnings?
According to the Egg with Eyebrows, before 9-11, nobody could have imagined hijackers using airplanes as weapons.
But Bush and Cheney stonewalled after 9-11.
Never mind that suicide bombings, FBI memos, warnings from Mossad, all pointed to suicide bombings.
it impeachment time yet? Look at this piece from CBS News last summer
... Ashcroft was taking military jets instead of commercial because of
the same risk assessment that the White House ignored. Those bastards
have been blaming the Clinton Administration
For months conservative Republican commentators exploited the tragedy of 9/11 and tried to redirect the peoples' anger against the Democrats and Bill Clinton. For months conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and George Will directly blamed Bill Clinton for "not getting Bin Laden when he had the chance." Now the truth is coming out.
These commentators have had selective memory. It must be said aloud: The Conservative commentators are fascist propagandists. Rush Limbaugh is America's "Joseph Geobbels." Day after day, time and time again, the conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and George Will are proven wrong and are shown to have been deceitful, yet these people are still on the air spewing lies. These people have no shame because they have no conscience, they are empty and hollow inside.
A BuzzFlash Reader
You've already posted a link to this CNN article on your main page but, it seems pretty headline grabbing in light of the revelations in the last eighteen hours.
You folks are soooooooooo good! Keep up the great work!
RE: Bush Was Warned of a bin Laden Plot
Apparently, there is little intelligence or plain common sense in our 'intelligence' and investigative agencies. Are suicide attacks something new? Airplanes have been used as weapons at least since WWII (maybe they haven't heard about the kamikaze attacks yet?). And the FBI and CIA knew that terrorists had plans to use such tactics. The Philippine authorities had captured Ramzi Yousef, who was in Manilla leading terrorists in an attempt on the Pope. He revealed that they had further plans to simultaneously blow up eleven airliners and crash a smaller plane into CIA headquarters in Virginia. He told interrogators that they had additional US targets in mind, including Congress, the White House, the Pentagon and possibly some skyscrapers, but not enough pilots to hit them all. (Hollywood was aware of the possibilities, but in their versions, like the movie 'Executive Decision', the terrorists are found out and thwarted, after much heroic action.) Maybe I expect too much, but it seems to me that the folks in charge at these agencies are either dimwits, criminally negligent, or covering-up what really led up to September 11.
Keep opening eyes,
Please read the enclosed article from CBS News from July 25, 2001 and please note:
The FBI warned Ashcroft not to fly commercial, but they didn't warn the public. The American public are expendable. Any time the FBI becomes aware of potential terrorist threats, they are certain to notify the cabinet. How could Ashcroft NOT know? Ashcroft knew about the dangers of aircraft -- look what happened to his Democratic opponent for US Senator during the 2000 campaign. Why was the use of private leased jets and their high price tag approved? And by whom? Why did Ashcroft state, when asked if he know the details of the threat: "Frankly I don't know. That's the answer." Why did Ashcroft's FBI security detail say "no comment" regarding any potential dangers to him?
Today is really the end of it for me as far as simply seeing the humor in pResident Weak and Stupid rather than the serious danger this person is putting Americans into every day. This "man" needs to be held to the same standard as his predecessors, particularly Bill Clinton. I offer the following examples:
President Clinton is still lambasted by the right on a daily basis for "doing nothing about bin Laden when presented with his whereabouts during his second term. Bush was not only notified about his whereabouts, but, now we find out, pretty accurate warnings were given to him regarding the types of attacks planned. Bush ignored the warnings, cleared some more brush on his farm for the next month and came out like a jackass and blamed every agency under HIS authority for failing to warn him and failing to do their jobs to prevent the attacks.
President Clinton, almost on a daily basis, is still attacked for allowing contributors to stay in the White House. Bush has GIVEN the White House and his Presidency to his contributors and allowed them to not only shape, but to dictate the policies of the United States (Enron and The NRA), and then sell pictures of himself trying to "look presidential" on a day that thousands of Americans were burned, maimed, and in some cases, vaporized.
President and Mrs. Clinton are labeled as crooks, liars and even murderers by the right wing wacko fringe of the media. The Office of "Independent" Counsel cleared the Clintons of any wrongdoing in Whitewater and any of the other tangents that the Whitewater investigation went off on, with the exception of Clinton's lying about the Lewinsky affair. Fair enough, President Clinton may not be my idea of the ideal family man, but I voted for him to be my president, not my father.
There are credible accounts of Bush going AWOL, using cocaine on a regular basis, committing acts of insider trading, shady business dealings, DUI arrests, coerced abortions, crooked land deals (The Texas Rangers new stadium), and those are just the items that have been corroborated by more than one person.
Jimmy Carter has gone to Cuba to try to make a difference in the way Cuba treats it's people and the way it interacts with the rest of the international community. He has a chance to do a lot of good, the opportunity for change is here, but what does the Bush administration do?
The Bush Administration is trying at every turn to make Carter look like a boob at best and a "communist" at worst. This man (Carter) has done more to promote free and democratic elections, promote human rights and to give back some dignity to those in need through his setting up of charitable enterprises (Habitat For Humanity, for example) than any other president in recent history.
Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and even Clinton cannot hold a candle to this man when it comes to trying to make the world a better place. What amazes me, is how Bush is tainting Carter's attempts at reform in Cuba, when they are being done to promote peace and well being in a nonpartisan manner.
We are bombarded on a daily basis by the Republican Party and the right wing media who try to explain away all of Bush's lies, crimes and misdeeds by telling the American people that "whatever Bush did wasn't bad or wrong, just look at what Clinton did." I for one am sick of this and the slow witted responses to these injustices by a majority of the Democratic Party, Our elected Democratic officials and by grass roots Democrats like you and I who are being assailed by these lies, crimes and misdeeds. We need to stand up now and bombard our elected representatives, the media and the right wing radio, TV, internet websites and newspaper sources that are spreading these lies and creating these cover-ups and get the word out. Faxes, emails, phone calls, letters to the editors even protests are what's needed to let people know what is going on right beneath their noses. Demand investigations, demand the appointment of special prosecutors, demand congressional hearings if these demands fall upon deaf ears, vote the current crop of timid Democratic officials out and lets elect new ones who will uphold the laws and our honor and dignity.
In closing, my anger stems from the attitude that I had when Bush stole the election and I had the thought that, "Well, if nothing else it'll be 4 years of comic relief watching Bush make a fool out of himself."
Well, as we can see after September 11th and by looking at the way our economy, constitution and standing in the world community is being raped by this administration, there is a lot more at stake than just the embarrassment of 4 years of dealing with a harmless fraud like Bush, our very lives and way of life may depend on it.
One reporter just asked why the Bush Admin. didn't anticipate suicide attack being as how all the prior embassy attacks, and the attack on the USS Cole were suicide attacks.
Ari defends Bush by pointing out yes, there were prior suicide attacks but those attacks took place overseas.
Christ on a cracker, how dumb is that? That's like saying "the warning came in blue ink and we're only understand words written with black ink."
Subj: Compare and Contrast
<<U.S. law-enforcement authorities knew as early as 1995 that Middle Eastern men were training at American flight schools and had discussed crashing planes into federal buildings, but did not follow up on the information, according to documents and interviews with American and Filipino authorities.>>
<<"It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad," Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. "The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile.">>
"That alert was not announced publicly but Fleischer said it may have prompted the hijackers to change their tactics."
Uh.....if this "alert" was not announced publicly, how is it the hijackers were able to change their tactics?
Can anyone make sense out of this major contradiction in Ari's statement?
Is this like those executives who conveniently sold off their Enron stock before the rapid price downfall.....all without insider trading knowledge?
As long as we've got the Commander in Chief on the hot seat these days, it's important to pass on his own words as far and wide as possible. I'd do anything to see a reporter or Congressman ask somebody in the White House how he could claim to have been so innocently naive as he does here when they now admit he'd been briefed. "I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it." and "I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your Daddy's and Mother's mind probably." Sounds even more deceptive than ever now, especially when we know about the 75 minute gap between when officials first knew something foul was going on and when they FINALLY sent out fighters and stopped air traffic.
Bush is not supposed to be like "Daddy and Mother" when it comes to if and when America is ever attacked. I turned on CNN by chance within minutes of the first attack and IMMEDIATELY questioned if it could have been terrorists, staying glued to the TV to find out and dropping everything I had planned. Selling his education bill was more important to him than protecting Americans like Barbara Olson - if you give him the FULL benefit of the doubt. But now he's using his stupidest hour to raise even more funds with his photo op-portunism. Just how low can he go.
....etc. then closing with:
Well, Jordan. Do you believe him now???
A BuzzFlash Reader
If Bush knew of impending possible hijackings of any kind..... why were boxcutters still allowed on planes?
Funny how it's taken this long for it come out that The Moron in Thief knew of 9/11 in advance. I'm not with the CIA, FBI, FAA or Roto Rooter, but heck, I'd figured that much out all on my lonesome.
And you know damn well that if this had happened with Clinton or Gore in the Oval Office, the Repugs would be crying impeachment.
I think we should all encourage everyone we know to send emails to all the cable shows about the 9/11 Bush briefing. They are trying to frame the debate into being that they couldn't have known the planes were going to be used as bombs---I say we encourage the media to focus on how 4 planes can be hijacked less a month after information about potential hijackings was given to Bush.
Here is a sample of what I wrote:
How was it possible for 4 planes to be simultaneously be hijacked less than a month after the President and intelligence community had information regarding bin laden's people planning to hijack planes. I think we should be asking how 4 hijackings could occur not if we could have prevented them from flying into buildings. If the hijackings are prevented the tragedy is prevented.
thank you, stevie gardiner
PS-we have to keep the media clowns from spinning the White House propaganda and not asking the right questions. Maybe we can encourage them not to be distracted by Ari's non-answers and reframing the question.
Thanks keep up the good work
I am, at this time, listening to a briefing with Sen. Daschle, about the events of 9/11 and he has added something else, that I was never aware of. The Vice president asked him on numerous occasions to "Not Investigate" the sept.llth. attacks.. Many, numerous,...more than one!! His lame excuse was that it could pull intelligence investigators away from their very important jobs!! Who in the world do they think we are? My 10-year-old grandchildren could see through that! Everyone who warned the Stooge, say the same thing, he was on vacation in Crawford Texas...pulling weeds..Out of his brain, no doubt!!! Of course, now Ari, the liar, is trying to cover up, too! This is getting curiouser and curiouser! But, the thing that frightens me most is that there is nothing I would put past this bunch... if was for personal gain..nothing! Keep buzzin about this thing..it is the most important thing that we all can add to..
PS: I'm afraid now!
PS: The idiot president has made it his business to be with the revered Nancy Reagan, to accept the Congressional Medals...He is acting like the biggest, most wonderful person in the world..What a joke this man is!!!
I can't decide which picture fits best:
Bush, being laid back, lacking humility and attention to detail, simply thinks that things are okay and does nothing about warnings of terrorist activity. He has ties to the Saudis and doesn't want too much done in the way of investigating terrorism and he is sympathetic to those who want to get rid of the Taliban in order to go after the oil around Afghanistan. He has been briefed (more of those pesky terrorism warnings), everybody is on track, he goes on vacation. This is a picture of a sort of incompetence.
Bush, wanting to help his international oil friends, decides that he needs public opinion in the US to back military action in the Middle East. He knows that there are threats of terrorism from that area and consciously decides to neglect them. (One CIA or FBI official actually resigns because he can't accept the Bush Administration policy on investigating the bin Laden connection). When the WTC attacks occur, he isn't surprised so he continues his elementary school visit. He does make sure that his Saudi friends can get out of the U.S. because that is where his priorities lie - international control of the world's oil business. This is a picture of criminality.
To be fair, a third picture. Bush gets warnings of Middle Easterners hijacking planes in the U.S. But he gets warnings every day of all kinds of terrorist activities. How can he know which ones are credible? How can he possibly act on all of them - he has to prioritize. [He decides to go after those terminally ill people in Oregon who want to end their own suffering - they pose a threat to our Great American culture. (sorry, I can't control myself.) ] Alerts are issued and various agencies are trusted to do their jobs. After all, Bush can't personally provide airport security. This is a picture of how all administrations work - they prioritize and to some extent guess about threats.
I personally don't buy picture 3 but I don't know about the other two choices. Anybody have any other scenarios?
It's almost comical. I suspect a lot of mainstream writers are going to be accessing your site for information on the "blockbuster," while feigning boredom with the sorted affair. A media revolution appears to be taking place, where the old "reliables" are cast aside due to their Faustian-behind-the scenes bargain with the CEO puppet-masters. The public senses the corporate news grinders aren't real anymore. And here you sit, with Constitution in hand. A matter of good timing, or desperate need? Whatever, it's history in the making! You're revolutionaries!
A BuzzFlash Reader
"To me he is shielded in Teflon."
Over time, Teflon cracks and peels and must be thrown away. Have faith in the American people Mary, remember President Clinton always did.
Nancy Lynn Nagy
The defense of what he knew and when he knew it will center around specific time, dates, locations, etc. Such requirements will be used to defend the Pretender, but the obvious is and has been apparent.
Much information was available to George W. Bush and his staff from various reliable sources, American and foreign, for him to reasonably assume an impending threat to the well-being of American citizens was imminent.
Yet, no information has surfaced that airline corporations, much less pilots and aircraft crew, were alerted to a possible terrorist attack. Nor, apparently, was the private airport security corporation asked to be on heightened alert for terrorist activity.
Knowing that danger was in the offing for citizens and the security of the nation, and failing to duly notify airlines, among other agencies and corporations, much less the military, is an abject failure to fulfill his swore obligation to the nation.
Treason: a violation of allegiance to one's state; the betrayal of a trust or confidence; treachery.
A review of the video tape that was made in the Florida elementary school classroom as Mr. Card whispered the news of the catastrophic event at the World Trade Center into Mr. Bush's ear and you clearly see a man who is either immobilized by fear or is choosing to ignore the news in order to complete the prepared script - or both. There is no other explanation. Men and women who were fearless, take-charge people, like Rumsfeld, immediately acted to meet the crisis. Those who were immobilized with fear or were completing a script, did nothing but seek cover.
H. M. Boruck
So far I have heard no apologies to Barbara Lee or Cynthia McKinney. I believe Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is owed an apology from a lot of people. She was called many unkind names, as was Lee, and dismissed as some crazy liberal. When she was only asking that 9/11 be investigated and she showed concern for those people who were being detained by the US government. I did a little spin down the dial this morning, Limbaugh blames 9/11 on Clinton (big surprise), O'Reilly is talking about there is a gay Archbishop out there who is going to be outed, and the local blonde ditto head "I hate Clinton" is talking about some local stupid thing. But if she gets to what did Bush know and when did he know it I am sure she will be saying it was Clintons fault, because like The Deaf One everything is Clintons fault. Have to laugh some guy named Goss on CNN now is wondering who leaked this story.........duhhhhh George did before the investigating committee figured out what happened. Thank goodness for your web page, great work.
Psssst... Hey, Ari....Tell Smirky that conventional hijackers do not need to know how to fly airplanes, and while you're at it, tell Dumbya that Intelligence passes on only credible threats to the President. So quit the play-acting that the bin-Laden warning was some kind of needle in a haystack.
Greetings gods of the BuzzFlash...
Had I the time, I'd draft something appalling for you, but please tell me that, with regard to the new Administration failures of intelligence info, that you're going to title some news link as: IS IT PREMATURE TO TALK OF IMPEACHMENT?
'tis evil to say, but one lives for moments like this...keep up the good work!
In light of the news coming out in recent days informing us that Bush was in fact warned and briefed about the possibility of a terrorists attack or hijacking I think it is important that we all remember that Bush claimed that upon seeing live footage(?) of the first attack he thought to himself, "There goes one lousy pilot," or some such nonsense. Are we supposed to believe that after the warnings and briefings he received that he didn't put two and two together and realize that this was not pilot error but rather the beginning of the very attacks he'd been warned about.
In addition to that, I just read an ABC News transcript of the reporting of the events of Sept.11 as they occurred. Bush would later claim that he saw the first crash while waiting in the hallway of the Florida elementary school he was visiting that day. However, in the transcript it is recorded that reporters approached Bush outside his hotel BEFORE he went to the school and asked him if he knew what was going on in New York. He said that he did and would have something to say about it later. He knew BEFORE he went to that school that the first tower had been attacked yet he went anyway and then made up a story about seeing the FIRST attack LIVE.
Just a comment you may choose to pass on to your readers. In light of all the revelations today about information Bush had and how they didn't connect the dots..... This is EXACTLY why Americans should want a so-called "wonk" such as Al Gore for President instead of a person they'd "enjoy having a beer with," such as Bush.
(Not to imply that I would personally enjoy the latter, but you know, that was the argument made to voters.)
Quote of the Day, in response to Smirk's comment about what he knew before the Sept. 11 attacks of "there is a sniff of politics in the air."
"Sniff of politics? We want a sniff of truth," Boxer said. "Why didn't we (Congress) know about this a lot sooner."
I believe that the latest revelations exposing the fact that Bush & Co had prior knowledge of threats that resulted in the 9/11 tragedy will come as little surprise to many. Anyone who wasn't prepared to just swallow the party line could surely see gaping holes in the tapestry woven at the White House. I now consider what will follow to be more a test of the resolve of the American people than of the Democrats. How much pressure will be put to bear by the people, for the people? Do Americans have the will and determination to demand their representatives act on their behalf and push for the truth? For the Democrats are like any political animal, and if the demand is strong enough, they will meet that demand for their own political survival.
From a story on Yahoo:
No, the mission of the Department of Transportation is public safety. Except, of course, under a Bush regime when ALL federal agencies are about coddling big business and campaign contributors.
Susan Page, talking to Holt, on MSNBC at 5:25 pm, started the "idea" it wasn't the Bush Admin failure, it was the Clinton Admin failure.
OUTRAGEOUS, but completely expected.
Too bad President Bush was on vacation, instead of working, where he could have spent some time fighting terrorism.
post a link from the archives about how on the very day Gore released
We think we heard enough about the publicans and thief george. Can we now say the word IMPEACH??? About now, the not so supreme court 5 should be ready to jump ship, as karen hughes did, and run home to the shelter of their families!
A&LN, BuzzFlash Readers.
Buzz is doing a great job of covering the "warning" story- and
you were ahead of the curve before it broke-
A few ideas for Buzz
1- don't let the conservatives off the hook for their original charge
that Clinton had weakened the services- ergo it was his fault
2- find and document all the columns and stories they ran to that effect-
op-ends in the WSJ and elsewhere must now be challenged for what they
3- don't let anyone forget what our friend on the right would have done
if this were the other way around- imagine if a President Gore had announced
that Clinton had had advance notice of the bombing in OK City- any ideas
on how they would have reacted to that?
Remember the original conservative spin on the attacks: its Clinton's
The original allegation was that Clinton allowed the services and the
intelligence services to become depleted and undermanned. The nation was
vulnerable because of Clinton
But since then- The military
Bill Clinton's policies left behind became the first international force
ever to win a war in Afghanistan in the modern era
The intelligence services were just fine- scooping up information and
passing it on up To me the conservatives are completely discredited.
Now their new spin is
spin 1 spin 2 The unasked questions-
If the administration has nothing to hide, why are we learning about
it only now?
What else are you keeping- and when will it be revealed- after the November
A few ideas for Buzz
1- don't let the conservatives off the hook for their original charge that Clinton had weakened the services- ergo it was his fault
2- find and document all the columns and stories they ran to that effect- op-ends in the WSJ and elsewhere must now be challenged for what they are
3- don't let anyone forget what our friend on the right would have done if this were the other way around- imagine if a President Gore had announced that Clinton had had advance notice of the bombing in OK City- any ideas on how they would have reacted to that?
Remember the original conservative spin on the attacks: its Clinton's fault.
The original allegation was that Clinton allowed the services and the intelligence services to become depleted and undermanned. The nation was vulnerable because of Clinton
But since then- The military
Bill Clinton's policies left behind became the first international force ever to win a war in Afghanistan in the modern era
The intelligence services were just fine- scooping up information and
passing it on up
To me the conservatives are completely discredited.
Now their new spin is
The unasked questions-
If the administration has nothing to hide, why are we learning about it only now?
What else are you keeping- and when will it be revealed- after the November elections?
Thank you for making us aware of and providing access to the views of such fine representatives as Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Hard as it is to get at the truth in these times, you are a beacon in the dark.
Dick Cheney just threatened even more devastating attacks on America if congressional investigators don't back off! See article at link below:
Cheney's rhetoric has the ring of "blackmail" to it! Does he have more information on future attacks that the White House is withholding from the American people?
This report from 60 Minutes II is explosive.
The French unequivocally state that they turned over all the information they had on Moussaoui weeks before Sept. 11. The FBI denies this, saying they received scant and general information from the French and thus could not obtain a FISA warrant. An excerpt:
The French had reason to link Moussaoui to Osama bin Laden’s organization....Jean-Louis Bruguiere is a French judge and one of the world’s top terror investigators....Bruguiere says that when the FBI asked about Moussaoui, French intelligence was eager to help.
“For this particular case, I can’t discuss the specific details. But overall all the information we had, we handed it over,” he says.
“We gave them everything we had,” says Bruguiere. “Or what we knew when these requests were made.”
...The French had a thick file on Moussaoui. But U.S. government sources tell us the FBI never received all the information from the French. These sources say the French sent only a few pages to FBI headquarters that described Moussaoui as an Islamic extremist and dangerous...
Hmmmm. Now, I don't know about you, but there is something quite funky about this difference of opinion.
So the complaint is that the Bush administration failed to connect the dots in a way to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But others can't connect them, either, namely American journalists.
Bush was briefed Aug. 6 about the suspicions concerning al Qaeda operatives planning a plane hijacking in the United States. Which is about the time he suddenly decided to take a month-long vacation on his ranch in Crawford, which, unlike the White House, would be difficult for a jetliner hijacker to identify from the air. Or about a week before U.S. negotiators trying to close a deal with the Taliban promised the mullahs "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs," which means American envoys already had a pretext lined up for making war in Afghanistan. But nobody in the news media seems to see how incidents appear to line up.
The Bush administration had general knowledge of the 9/11 plot long before it was carried out. The very best that can be said of the Bushies is that they are profoundly incompetent. The very worst that can be said is that the White House allowed the attack to occur to provide a pretext for a military action to secure a pipeline deal for his sleazy oilman buddies.
It's difficult to wrap one's brain around the notion that our nation's leader would allow the slaughter of thousands of Americans to further the interests of his cronies, and it's easier to write the matter off as extraordinary bungling. But keep this in mind: People who steal elections don't do so to do noble things.
The Bush administration is unbelievable. The response of Bush mouthpieces regarding recent disclosures about the warnings given about potential terrorist attacks is so childish as to defy belief. Bush swore an oath that as President he would obey all laws and protect the Constitution. He also swore to defend the nation. To claim that there was nothing the administration could do to forestall an attack by announcing the discovery of potential plots strains credulity. Watching henchwoman Rice, who was visibly shaken and obviously prevaricating, was laughable if not for the seriousness of the circumstances: Oh, the airlines would have been disrupted and impacted if we had warned them! What rubbish! Not only does this put the lie to the Rove propaganda about Republicans being the party that best protects American, but it exposes the utter incompetence and contempt for America of this administration. Had the 9-11 events and subsequent exposes happened during the Clinton administration, we can be sure the hypocrites in the repugnican party would be out for blood and wanting his head skewered on a pike. I hope this very real failure of the Bushite regime is the beginning of the end for this ignorant tyrant and his coterie of greedy and callous sycophants.
Finally, the nation knows what BuzzFlash readers have known all along!
You read it here first!
When the dung hit the fan, they sent out Condi to give a dung conference.
She was visibly shaken and grasping for words. If she said the threats
were "too general" one more time, I thought I'd barf. That's
the catchword all the Publicans are using... general threats... nothing
specific...oh, and don't forget political. Come on Condi, did you expect
the Goodyear blimp to fly over the capitol, advertising in lights what
the terrorists planned to do? Would that have been specific enough for
this administration? There is something very specific in the administration's
defense of themselves. Specifically, it's called a crock of dung!
Finally, the nation knows what BuzzFlash readers have known all along! You read it here first!
When the dung hit the fan, they sent out Condi to give a dung conference. She was visibly shaken and grasping for words. If she said the threats were "too general" one more time, I thought I'd barf. That's the catchword all the Publicans are using... general threats... nothing specific...oh, and don't forget political. Come on Condi, did you expect the Goodyear blimp to fly over the capitol, advertising in lights what the terrorists planned to do? Would that have been specific enough for this administration? There is something very specific in the administration's defense of themselves. Specifically, it's called a crock of dung!
May 17, 2002
During Bush's campaign to become the first Supreme Court appointed president, he claimed to be a 'compassionate conservative' and purported an interest in 'restoring dignity' to the White House. Shortly after 9/11 it was reported that Bush commented to Budget Director Mitch Daniels, "Lucky me, I hit the trifecta." While there had been indicators of Mr. Bush's insensitivity prior to that comment (e.g., "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush
CNN transcript from 12/18/2000 http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/
Indeed, pictures taken of Mr. Bush on 9-11 including the picture recently offered for sale by the RNC often indicate a smile or an amused look. Say what you will about William Jefferson Clinton, he knew enough to appear presidential when dealing with serious situations! On a day when thousands of Americans and others died, surely the nation deserved better than a gleeful leader.
Remarks and actions like these should not be ignored. The character of the man is revealed more clearly in these statements and actions than in all of Bush's crafted speeches prepared by his closest advisors. Bush's actions and words seem to be overlooked or forgiven even as he and his advisors play on themes of fear and secrecy, but the country fails to pay attention at its own peril.
Dear BuzzFlash readers:
I read with interest the list of things that the bush administration could have done to thwart the 9/11 disaster. Very simple. Since Moussaoui was already in custody and Asscroft would not issue a warrant to seize his laptop, the FBI CIA or w himself could have ordered the investigation of all student visas in this country. Students with Middle Eastern names or not. I'm sure that there would have been a link to someone like Atta or another. If that person was at least questioned, there is no telling what would have occurred. They might have postponed the attack. If the republican party can pay 4 million dollars for a felons list in Florida to secure the Presidency for w, then I'm sure FBI or CIA computers could have linked some of these people...or did they already know about them? How is it that within days of 9/11 we had all the names and addresses of the 19 suicidal Islamasists (15 of which are Saudi)we knew where they were from Germany to Virginia. We even had pictures of Atta getting on that commuter plane in the Northeast. Come on! Wake up! They knew! They all knew!!!
Condoleeza Rice offered in her news conference that the administration was warned of a "classical hijacking" threat in the infamous memo given to Bush on August sixth of last year. After reviewing most of the articles on your site I can find no mention of the FBI's ability to link the "classical hijacking" threat to the fact that many mid-eastern men were taking flight instructions, paid with cash, to learn how to pilot jumbo jets of a specific designation, i.e., 757 and 767 types. These instructions were in piloting of a jet already airborne, not in takeoff or landing. These facts led me to propose questions that I thought should have been obvious red flag to the FBI.
Why were so many men learning to "fly" these large planes? A classical hijacking would simply require forcing the commercial pilots to follow directions. The time and money expended for flight instructions would have been a waste.
Why did these men not get instructions in landing and takeoff? It seems obvious to me that landing and takeoff were not required procedures. At least one of the flight instructors also concluded this and told the FBI as much.
I'm appalled that the FBI could not take these clues and conclude that the threat of an in-air hijacking, control of the aircraft by the hijackers with no planned landing was at least a possibility.
Let's all keep pushing for release of the infamous memo and a thorough investigation into this tragedy. I don't see how the FBI could have been so wrong.
This huge flap about 9/11 may be the only time in Smirk's life when he's been charged with actually knowing something.
loyal Florida fan
Interesting quote buried in this long article: If all of this were happening under a Democratic Administration, however, rest assured that things would be quite different.
Also rest assured that if this issue does seem to be gaining some political traction, or if Karl even starts to fear that it might, the White House likely will fight back with utterly predictable, blind and on-the-record quotes along two lines: 1) we'll hear about how "angry" President Bush is about what has happened, and 2) we'll be reminded that all of this took place only soon after President Bush took office, and Clinton-Gore will be blamed for eight years of neglect of US intelligence capabilities.
M E Buccieri
Yeah, wouldn't want to scare people needlessly, would we? But how about all the general, ambiguous 'warnings' SINCE then? Enron scandal breaks? - issue a warning; heat on Thomas White? - issue a warning; need to give more money to Poppy & co.? - issue a warning. All color-coded and categorized for your convenience. The fact is, these are people who will do or say anything - literally ANYTHING - to further their agenda of power and money grabbing. I've taken much heat in discussions with people over what this administration knew and did prior to 9/11. The paint is peeling now, and our country will need this catharsis. But do not focus on why they told the public nothing of this, although it isn't hard to figure that part out. That is easily explained away. As we can see now, the spin machine is in full turn. The focus should be what they DID with the information received, not whether they informed us or not. There is the smoking gun.
Ah-ha. Here it is, the excerpt from the press briefing:
If the White House had been briefed after 9/11 you can bet the farm Ari Fleischer would know the exact date the White House "heard about it."
Conclusion: Bush had to have had this specific information before 9/11. There is no other reasonable conclusion.
There is no gotcha! here, no satisfaction of payback in yesterday's news - that Bush, Cheney, Rice knew more than they told us. I am heartsick for the families and friends of those lost, who must listen to this news and speculation and wonder, "what if?"
As hard as it is for those families, I must say I was literally amazed yesterday to see this story headlined on every mainstream news website - cnn, foxnews, msnbc, abc and cbs. As I drove home last night, many radio stations lead the news with this story. Above the fold in newspapers yesterday and today. It was great to hear reporters acting like reporters as they questioned Condy Rice and Ari Fleischer.
Even yesterday, I heard several conservatives being remarkable candid and open in their questioning of what happened. For example, Jay Severin, a radio personality - saying Condy Rice sounded "shook" in her press conference, questioning the ridiculous assertion that no error was made because no intelligence said planes would be used as missiles, Howard Fineman - questioning the president's credibility for not telling us this information in the days after 9-11 (and Chris Matthews actually agreeing with him and going further). (Okay, so I also heard Laura Ingraham - who was completely off the charts, choosing to continue pot shots at Clinton rather than deal with the reality of the news - Cheney was equally in denial trying his "conservation is a virtue" type response when admonishing Democrats and others questioning what the Administration knew in advance of September 11.)
What is disgusting, as James Carville said on Crossfire last night, is that all the time they were blaming the Clinton administration for failing to act against OBL - they knew that had some warning, some intelligence that they failed to act on. Howard Fineman made the point on Hardball that in addition to (1) the August 6 briefing and (2) the two FBI reports -- but that on September 9 Bush received on his desk a detailed plan to get rid of "AQ" - diplomatically, financially and if necessary, militarily. Bush apparently had not yet read the plan.
Howard's point was - if nothing specific was mentioned to Bush, if nothing credible was presented to Bush - then why did he ask for this detailed plan? (I was shocked to hear Howard ponder this aloud). Howard went on to say - the reason Bush was able to act so quickly after 9/11 was that the plan was already in place - yet he led us to believe the implementation was successful because his administration was so good.
I think reporters will continue to question, because they are so shocked with this news. What I hope to see is more questioning - and more connecting the dots (those of us reading BuzzFlash already have our picture drawn and framed for that matter). Why did Bush order a plan to be developed to get rid of "AQ"? When will reporters start talking about the planned pipeline and the carpet of bombs or the carpet of gold? Let's create the picture, so we know the truth. Let's move up the translation into English of the French book detailing the pipeline and former FBI agent O'Neill's comments about being told to stop investigating the Taliban. For those families who must suffer through this - I am and will continue to be heartsick. But we need to know the truth.
I like the idea of an independent commission. I heard John McCain last night talking about who he'd like to see on the commission and that frightened me - Kissinger and lots of other Republican names. I say put a few family members on that commission, a few ordinary citizens.
Thanks for the good work BuzzFlash.
I thought this would interest your readers. Here is just one more in a long, long line of shining examples of the rampant hypocrisy coming from the right. This is from an article in the NY Times (the article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/politics/17WARN.html), and keep in mind when you're reading this Karl Rove's comments recently to a Republican gathering regarding the White House's full intention to politicize the war on terror as well as the recent flap over the NRCC selling photos of Bush talking on the phone to Dick Cheney on Sept. 11 in order to raise funds for the election of Republicans:
Representative Jennifer Dunn, Republican of Washington, also blamed the Democrats.
"I think politicizing this, which is what the Democrats have done for the last few days, is a very, very low-level, underhanded use of a terrible incident," Ms. Dunn said.
Makes you wonder where all that outrage over politicizing a national tragedy has been for the past several months. Once again, Republicans are telling us that it's OK for Republicans to politicize a national tragedy, in fact, it's admirable and honorable when Republicans do it. But it's "very low-level" and "underhanded" when they perceive merely the appearance of politicizing 9/11 from the Democrats.
Ms. Dunn would have to take quite a stretch to show how demanding answers to the questions on everyone's minds, the questions that the White House's revelations have left with us all equals politicizing 9/11.
One thing the Bush Administration has made no secret of is it's penchant for secrecy, and revealing this information 8 months out sure does look awfully suspicious. If this information hadn't been leaked, would we have ever found out about it? And what else is the Administration that loves to hide information from the public hiding?
I sure would like for Ms. Dunn to explain to me exactly how demanding accountability from our elected officials and asking these questions amounts to politicizing 9/11, especially when you consider that many Republicans are asking the same questions. I wonder if Ms. Dunn can spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
Read down to paragraph 14. What can this mean? Sounds *very* ominous to me:
A BuzzFlash Reader
In a message dated 5/17/02 8:46:45 Eastern Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
Totally agree. Bill Clinton is where they're pointing their dirty fingers.
IMO if this is not handled properly, it will just be like the Enron committee hearings!
Lots of grandstanding and no accountability where due. The fat cats will still retire in their mansions not the penitentiary!
Hail to the thief!
I have been reading your great website for months. I seem to remember that there were questions being asked even before this new uproar re 9-11 by some people. I also seemed to remember that there were aircraft available to put a blanket over the east coast area. But those aircraft were on stand-down.
Now the question comes to my mind, "Given the new information regarding the Bush administration knowing about the possibility of hijackings, Why was 9-11 selected as THE day for a stand down of those aircraft?
It is hard for me to believe that the white house would use this tactic to open up the possibility of a complete takeover of the government. But then it was hard to believe the Supreme court would act as they did.
I fond it particularly interesting that the excuse Ari used about the advanced word concerning terrorist activity is that the warning was too vague to be of any real use.
Has anyone ever compared the warning Bush received about terrorism pre-Sept. 11th and the warnings that Mr. Ridge has given Americans post-Sept. 11th?
So, Bush and company received warnings that they could not have possible used in any way to predict that extremists would hijack airplanes, then fly them into buildings. "Hijacking" has always meant a free flight to Havana, right? So what if the people in flight training didn't care about landing, only flying? That's just way too vague.
Then, Bush and company start giving warnings about possible terrorist activity that just might possibly maybe happen somewhere near you. Or not so near you. Or maybe far from you. You must be on a heightened state of alert! Look out for suspicious activity! It may be a train that is hijacked next! Look out for the bridges! Watch those nuclear plants! Hide the VP! Ignore Enron! Oh, wait. It wasn't terrorists that caused Enron. Ignore that.
I feel so much more secure now that we're receiving those detailed warnings that will stop all future terrorist activities dead in their tracks.
I spent four years serving my country in the Army, so I feel I have every right to question the activities of the administration while still remaining a patriot who supports our members of the military. Lott did so under ex-Pres. Clinton, so I can too!
William Tarry San Antonio, Texas
I am astounded by the incredible "excuses" given by Pit-Bull (with apologies to all dogs), Arrogant Fleischer that we were expecting "traditional " garden variety hijackings instead of what we got. I blink my eyes in amazement at the utter stupidity of such remarks, as if that threat wasn't "BIG" enough to warrant an aggressive response by this "we have an answer to everything" illegitimate administration. Then Condisleazy "lectures" us that had warnings been given to the American public, they could have "shut down the aviation system" (their REAL worry of course was any negative effect on Wall Street and stock holders--no worry about potential loss of life!) ...so they decided NOT to tell the American people. Funny how after 9/11 when warnings about terrorism were given every 5 seconds by this ridiculous administration trying to cover their collective asses, the American public continued to fly and the aviation system has not been shut down--other than immediately post 9/11 when it was ordered to! Now I read even MORE ridiculous statements by Airhead Fleischer that the hijackers, in light of all the (secret) warnings given to US intelligence, modified their plans and hid boxcutters and plastic knives to pull off their hijackings. I ask any intelligent person how that is supposed to EXPLAIN the situation any better. First of all, how did he KNOW they changed their tactics---did HE ask them? Are we supposed to feel BETTER that they found a way around the uninformed, lax airline security by coming up with a BETTER way to hijack the planes? And then I read that the airlines DENY they were given any warnings about hijackings--no airline personnel were put on high alert, no airline personnel were told that supposedly FEDERAL officials had this all under control. Can't wait to see what ludicrous excuses they'll continue to come up with. It's TIME to PROTECT all UNITED STATES CITIZENS and the WORLD from this INCOMPETENT, ILLEGITIMATE ADMINISTRATION!!
I just received the book "Fortunate Son" from you and started
to read it. Now I am beginning to wonder if his IQ is far below Clinton's.
Those in office are required to connect the dots and predict is something
is about to happen - otherwise they should be out. What is the road map
1. Clinton briefed him on Bin Laden, that Dec he took office. I believe Clinton would have put this together.
Does someone have to spell out in detail to the President or can't he
think for himself without Karl Rove and etc.
Those in office are required to connect the dots and predict is something is about to happen - otherwise they should be out. What is the road map
1. Clinton briefed him on Bin Laden, that Dec he took office.
I believe Clinton would have put this together.
Does someone have to spell out in detail to the President or can't he think for himself without Karl Rove and etc.
Please remember - and remind any of those who practice journalism - that last summer there were at least two independent investigations (scandals) concerning lax security at Logan airport in Boston. These occurred during the exact window of supposed "generalized warnings" the administration now admits to.
There were many other hints, clues, and outright warnings. All of them need to be taken out and composited. The resultant mosaic will be damning indeed.
This appeared in this morning's Atlanta Journal/Constitution. There were quite a few letters that were of a similar vent. Of course I expect the "Freepers" to inundate the papers in the next few days with the spin that this shouldn't be politicized! In fact Dick Cheney is making threats like he is a mafia don.
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 5/17/02 ]
McKinney was right
It seems that U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) was correct in her assertion that President Bush had advance warnings about possible terrorist attacks on the United States. When she asked for an investigation, she was condemned and ridiculed.
But she will never be offered an apology from Cynthia Tucker, Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) and her other attackers. I'm also sure that the Bush administration and right-wing nonapologists are busy trying to figure a way to blame Bush's failure to acknowledge that he had this information on Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Every word that comes from Bush's mouth is a lie. He was warned by the CIA and FBI because they were told about a possible terrorist attack by Mossad officials who traveled to Washington D C in June and August 2001 and told the CIA and the FBI. Ref: The Jerusalem Post, dated September 17, 2001. It is time to Impeach Bush and Cheney. Cheney doesn't want the Democrats to investigate for he knows the truth will come out that he "ordered the military to shoot down Flight 93."
seems entirely plausible that under the Patriot Act, Enron should be prosecuted
for knowingly threatening the health, safety and economic health of California
and the US. This new act clearly allows for this type of prosecution.
Ken Lay and his cronies under RICO statutes should be prosecuted as leaders
of this corrupt and blatantly illegal conspiracy to defraud, steal from,
and harm US citizens. It is time for the people and our progressive leaders
to use this new ACT on the friends of the very folks who created it. Lay
and his buddies are economic terrorists and they need to be held in jail
So let's see; don't bother counting the votes in Florida, we're telling you we won and the Supreme Court says so too; you people have no right to look at presidential papers from the Reagan or Bush administrations or the gubernatorial papers from w's stint in Texas; ain't none of your bidness who Cheney talked to or how the energy policy was devised; no the FBI cannot have a FISA warrant for Moussaoui; ya better watch out what you say now that Ashcroft is in charge at justice and an investigation into the attacks of Sept.11 is just playing politics by the democrats, unwarranted and unpatriotic besides. Who the hell do these people think they are???
It never fails. Every time the current administration occupying the White House gets caught at something, they use that diversion technique. It's always the Democrats fault. Now the Democrats are being accused of turning this into a political issue. I don't recall the Democrats saying, "We, as Democrats, blame the Republicans in the White House for not informing the American people about what they knew prior to September 11".
The blame in on somebody else technique always comes from the ones who are being accused. Each and every time something happens, the damage control posse (Ari, Condi, Donald) comes out and blames the democrats for turning it into a political issue.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but when the Democrats were in office, the Republicans continuously laid blame on the Democrats for everything, and turned everything into a political issue, without fail. And Dick Cheney says he's deeply disturbed. He is the one who brought it up first. He threw it out there for the media to grab the ball and run with it. Diversion . You can't always run and hide.. It's time to own up to it and take your lumps like men. And one more thing that "deeply disturbs me, is every time any of them get on television to either give a speech or answer question, they always say, " I'm sure the American people understand...blah, blah.,blah..... Tell me how any of you know what the American people understand, since none of you ever talk to us in the first place.
There you have it. The White House, Dick Cheney and the rest of the
clan are trying to divert the accusations once again and blame it on the
Democrats. The chimp president just finished saying on TV that this is
all a political game. Can you believe this? Democrats are going to be
tough with this one and keep insisting and need to make clear that they
ARE not accusing anyone but that they still want an investigation as to
what exactly happened prior 9/11.
Democrats need, unfortunately, to act and sound that they are being
fair with the Resident if not they will be accused by the media of playing
the political game.
Folks, this is very delicate, yes Bush knew, Yes they are all lying,
but if we do not act wisely all this fuzz will be turn against us. Remember
they are the master of turning things around.
When would it be? When would the media be responsible enough and start
asking tough questions to the Chimp-in chief? I lost hope.
There you have it. The White House, Dick Cheney and the rest of the clan are trying to divert the accusations once again and blame it on the Democrats. The chimp president just finished saying on TV that this is all a political game. Can you believe this? Democrats are going to be tough with this one and keep insisting and need to make clear that they ARE not accusing anyone but that they still want an investigation as to what exactly happened prior 9/11.
Democrats need, unfortunately, to act and sound that they are being fair with the Resident if not they will be accused by the media of playing the political game.
Folks, this is very delicate, yes Bush knew, Yes they are all lying, but if we do not act wisely all this fuzz will be turn against us. Remember they are the master of turning things around.
When would it be? When would the media be responsible enough and start asking tough questions to the Chimp-in chief? I lost hope.
Now, the story floated by MSNBC and the White House (9:00 am CDT) is "When
did the Democrats know...?" To this end they are citing an interview
granted by Diane Feinstein in the summer of 2000 where she talked about
a major terrorism threat. Anyway, we need to encourage Democrats to stand
strong, because the Bushies are trying to pull out the big guns and flip
this around on Democrats.
Given our history of backing down to Bush, will our Democratic leaders
stay in there and fight on this issue until the public knows the truth
about Bush and his failings on 9-11?
Given our history of backing down to Bush, will our Democratic leaders stay in there and fight on this issue until the public knows the truth about Bush and his failings on 9-11?
M E Buccieri
So, Cheney thinks, the reason for the Democrats' criticism of the intelligence briefing before Sept.11 is politically inspired. What about the President's steel import tax? What about the farm bill? What about the tax return bill? What about the military procurement bill? They are all politically motivated! What Washington does, has very little to do with us common folks, but a lot with the re-election of the politicians.
Maybe I have missed it, but I haven't seen recent mention of the Rudman-Hart commission, which gave early warnings of the threats of terrorism when it released its bipartisan report in February, 2001. Bush assigned Cheney to look into the issue, as if he had nothing else to do. I did a search on Google and came up with some references. One article, based on interviews in February 2002 around the anniversary of the report's release, is mainly focussed on the question of why the media ignored the obvious threat of terrorism before September 11. (http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/comm/transcripts/20020206.htm) The other obvious question is why the Bush administration ignored the report. Some insight is provided in the following article, which suggests political motivations for Bush assigning the task to Cheney instead of acting upon the bipartisan report: http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp.
Congressman...I do appreciate your taking the time to read and respond to my previous message asking you to join with Congresswoman McKinney and others in support of a thorough, unbiased investigation of the attack of 9/11. As you now know a lot has happened in the last 24 hours since you wrote in your reply that "There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Bush administration had prior knowledge or warning of the September 11th attacks."
Condi Rice is before us, Ari and Cheney are before us saying the warnings were not specific and did not say anything at all about using airliners as missiles.
This is not the truth, Congressman. Our CIA received specific warnings from German intelligence, the BND, in June of '01 that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.
The Echelon electronic spy system uncovered the coming attack and informed US and Israeli intelligence agencies.
This fact was reported last September by the German daily paper, FAZ, which learned of it through German intelligence. And, this respected German newspaper was reporting as far as six months prior to 9/11 that other western and near-east press services were receiving information that such attacks were being planned.
Last summer, Russian intelligence notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been training specifically for suicide missions. This was reported in the Russian press and translated by a retired CIA officer.
In August, President Putin ordered Russian intelligence to warn the US government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings. This was stated by Putin himself in an interview with MS-NBC.
The Echelon electronic spy system is the brainchild and creation of John Poindexter, of Iran-Contra fame. Mister Poindexter was convicted in 1990 of five felony charges of conspiracy, making false statements to Congress and obstructing congressional inquiries.
In February of '01, he took over a new Pentagon counter terrorism office. So, Mister Ponderer is once again inside the administration and his spy system discovered the plot. Did he keep it to himself?
President Bush was on vacation' and out of Washington for virtually the entire month of August. He returned for a day or two and went to Camp David for a week. Then he went to Florida. You have seen the video of him being told of the attack. Sitting in the school room there, he showed no surprise nor emotion at all.
Governor Job Bush of Florida signed Executive Order No. 01-261 on September 7th, 2001, renewing an order signed six months earlier that allowed the National Guard to be called out in case of emergency. On September 11th, he used this order to command members of the National Guard into active service and essentially declared martial law in Florida. When informed of the attacks in New York and Washington, Governor Bush responded, "Was it the terrorists?"
On the eve of his first State of the Union speech, George W. Bush along with Vice President Cheney contacted Senate Majority Leader Tom Dash and asked him to 'light' any Congressional investigations into the September 11th attacks.
Now give that a lot of serious though, Congressman. America was attacked and the President and Vice President ask the Congress and the Senate to LIMIT investigations?
What is going on here? You are my representative. I ask you to work all the way down to the bottom of it.
Wasn't it in August of 1996 (please correct me if the date is wrong) that
President Clinton ordered stepped up security in America's airports based
on intelligence reports he received? Didn't Americans grumble and groan
a bit at the inconvenience, but otherwise coped and appreciated the emphasis
on safety? Didn't the airlines adjust their procedures with a minimum of
breakdowns, keeping air travel flowing just fine? So how can the Bush Administration
make the argument that reacting to last Summer's warning "would have
risked shutting down the American civil aviation system with such generalized
Apparently, Bush's ABC (anything but Clinton) policy failed him again.
Apparently, Bush's ABC (anything but Clinton) policy failed him again.
Remember the unhonorable Ms. Parker who wrote the horrible column about
To Ms.Kathleen Parker I don't suppose you would get off your bigoted, biased, know-nothing
high horse and apologize to Cynthia McKinney for calling her looney would
Nah! I guess not. But Ms. Parker, by george we knew who the looney one
was from the beginning and it was and IS NOT Cynthia McKinney.
To Ms.Kathleen Parker
I don't suppose you would get off your bigoted, biased, know-nothing high horse and apologize to Cynthia McKinney for calling her looney would you?
Nah! I guess not. But Ms. Parker, by george we knew who the looney one was from the beginning and it was and IS NOT Cynthia McKinney.
Ari the Liar, in his briefing today, suggested that Senator Clinton had
acted in an unseemly way when she spoke on the floor of the Senate yesterday.
I can find nothing in her statement to warrant this kind of attack on her.
I find it despicable when in the midst of warning the press and Democrats
that they must "watch what they say", he uses this public forum
to smear Mrs. Clinton------but I am not surprised.
Here is a link to the text of her speech. Judge for yourself. Karen in Florida
Here is a link to the text of her speech. Judge for yourself.
Karen in Florida
After hearing of the specific plan to attack Al Qaeda that was prepared BEFORE 9/11, how can the Bush admin say, on the one hand, they did not have enough evidence to warn the public of the danger yet, on the other, consider the danger serious enough to put together an attack plan? This shows me that they are lying yet again!
I just read your posting of the MSNBC story on the supposed anti-al-Qaida attack plan that was sitting on Condi's desk awaiting the resident's signature a few days before 9/11.
I am skeptical, especially that we are hearing about this now. And did anyone notice that reporter Jim Miklaszewski of NBC/GE named no sources for this bit of news. They taught me in journalism school that it was very bad form for a reporter to rely solely on "the sources said on condition of anonymity" for a story. The reason being, we have no way of knowing who planted this story and thus no way of knowing its reliability.
Did Karl Rove call Miklaszewski or perhaps Condi made up this story herself?
Thanks for keeping us informed. Reading BuzzFlash is like getting the news a full seven or eight months before the mainstream media gets around to it. Just wait until the press starts asking why the Bush administration pulled FBI agents in the counter-terrorism office off the Saudis involved in the attacks (because they didn't what to offend the Saudi royal family) or the secret negotiations they were having with the Taliban for Unocal's pipeline. Those stories are going to make the current discussion of Bush's inaction (AWOL again) look like nothing. Who's Ari going to blame then?
RA in LA
'Something ... going to happen soon' -Administration was on alert, but downplayed a savvy foe http://www.msnbc.com/news/753410.asp
Could you repost the link to Jane's about the US planning on going after the Taliban well before 9/11. There was another link from an Indian paper about the same issue, and I'm getting no love from my searches.
Right now the administration is keeping on message that they were clueless and the intelligence community doesn't play well together(easy sells on both counts). We need to show that Afghanistan was not only on the radar because of terrorist warnings, but also the were going to be an active military target even without 9/11.
We know that he wasn't pissed about the Buddha bombings, so why were attack plans written up(per http://www.msnbc.com/news/753359.asp and the items above)? How the heck were the going to sell it to us without 9/11?
I just read an article about the Hart Rudman "Road Map for National Security" report, and its dismissal on May 5th last year by Bush:
I do not know how you can provide so many excellent links to so much excellent news. (I still think you are true American heros!)
Thank you (and I'll donate more soon to keep BuzzFlash buzzing).
I am so angry I am nearly speechless.
Something does not add up. Bush was briefed about some "general nonspecific" terrorist threat in August, but on September 9th a formal report lands on his desk suggesting an all out war against al Quaida?
There is no way to reconcile these 2 facts.
The horrible truth is that al-Qaida engaged in a preemptive strike against America, a direct result of the Bush Administration's negotiations over a pipeline deal. This is what foreign sources have been reporting for the past 9 months. We have all heard about the "carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs" threat.
We need to have a Commission impaneled regarding September 11th and we need to impeach the whole lot of them.
otherwise noted, all original