The BuzzFlash Mailbag
May 20, 2002
"inability" to connect the dots is a SOP for the Bushes. Poppy
Further, if the threat of a "ordinary" hijacking had been taken more seriously, and the 9/11 hijackers had been intercepted as a result of tighter security, the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented! This line about not connecting the dots doesn't excuse their negligence.
I'm still awaiting the revelations that lie hidden in the Phoenix memo. According to MSNBC, the memo contained several names of suspicious Arab flight students and the flight schools they attended. Wouldn't it be a tragedy if some of those names were actually 9/11 hijackers? Maybe that's why the memo is still classified...
When I listen to Ari Fleisher parsing the words to assure us that Bush didn't have any knowledge ahead of time that the terrorists would use airplanes as bombs, it's clear that he's trying to divert our attention.
THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT APPARENTLY NOTHING WAS DONE TO PREVENT THE HIJACKINGS!
His guilt doesn't relate to what the terrorists ultimately did with the planes. It's not related to whether or not the terrorists, after hijacking the planes, used them as bombs, flew them to Cuba, flew them to China, flew them into the ocean, killed the passengers, etc. The real problem is that they got away with hijacking the planes! That's the part that Bush was, apparently, clearly warned about and failed to act on.
Now we know why Bush tried to stay out of Washington D.C. in August.
According to reports, Bush had received stepped-up and multiple intelligence in late July and early August that something was about to happen (very possibly in the US) regarding terrorists. After 7 months in office, Bush decided he needed a ONE MONTH vacation in Crawford. Remember the outrage in BuzzFlash's mailbag? Could this month-long vacation be interpreted as getting the hell out of Dodge with the information? No sooner had Bush returned to D.C., he was off to read to the children (again, outside of D.C.) Then, once the attacks took place on 9/11, he couldn't bring himself to excuse himself from the children's class to attend to an attack on the US. Imagine that! The country is under attack and our so-called leader continues to sit-in on a class. Any other president would have been out the school in a flash communicating with D.C. personally. All flights were grounded and our leader's jet was the only one in the sky (additionally, the bin Laden family, who had permission to get the hell out of Dodge on a jet). Permission from who? When you have the power to ground every commercial jet in the country, you certainly have the power to excuse the bin Laden family from the groundings. Meanwhile, our leader flew around the country under the escort protection of F-16 fighter jets. Under the circumstances, why were there no F-16s in the air over the nation FOR NEARLY AN HOUR after the attacks? And how many commercial airliners stray DRASTICALLY out of their designated flight paths, let alone FOUR of them? All the alarms were going off and our leader just couldn't pull himself away from a reading class. I live in the flight path of a large city and 20 minutes after the first attack, there was an eerie silence in the skys and I noted it to my daughter at the time.
Meanwhile, the Chickenhawk and Chief was trying to find safe harbor under the protection of his F-16s. The parts of the puzzle are falling together in my mind and I sure don't like the picture that presents itself.
Keep up the good work.
Regarding exposing Bush lies about 9/11, what he knew and when. I just finished reading the latest spin regarding how "prepared" our military was to respond to 9/11.
One question - if Bush didn't know that a terrorist attack would occur, then what was the military prepared to do? Invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban without provocation, or prepared to respond to an attack?
Invading Afghanistan without provocation would not have set well with the American public, however if we responded to an attack, well, that's a whole new ball game.
Keep asking the questions!
[BuzzFlash Note: Well, there's this interesting little story that nobody seems to be talking about: U.S. planned for attack on al-Qaida. We're not sure if it's a horribly damning leak or White House propaganda. Regardless of the intent of its release, perhaps that had something to do with it.]
Bush: "I take my job as commander in chief very seriously," he told Air Force cadets and officers in a Rose Garden ceremony honoring their football team.
Is that the same seriousness he had for his duties in the Texas National Guard during the Viet Nam war?
Thinking minds would like to know.
A devoted BuzzFlash fan
Connect the dots -- investigate Sept. 11
The Bush administration tries to make the case that taking the time of FBI, CIA and Bush administration personnel to testify in any investigation of Sept. 11 would hamper their "war" work. Nonsense.
If a blue-ribbon commission could investigate Pearl Harbor even while we were immersed in World War II, why isn't it logical, ethical and necessary to get to the bottom of HOW Sept. 11 could happen?
World War II was a "real" war, with gasoline rationing, sugar, coffee, and meat rationing. Plus, America's young men were drafted and went off to fight -- while the civilian population at home went off to work in war plants. Do you see any of that happening now? No. Because this is not "all-out" war, this is a limited war -- no rationing, no draft, no war plants, no air-raid drills, no blackouts. So, why is the question even being asked about WHY Americans want an investigation of Sept. 11 now? Is it because the Bush administration has something to be worried about, and something to hide?
If the Bush administration has nothing to hide, it should welcome an investigation into events leading up to its failure to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks -- and into why, once four airliners were simultaneously hijacked, no fighter aircraft were sent up to deal with the situation
There were eight separate investigations -- during World War II -- of the Pearl Harbor attack. Investigating the Pearl Harbor attack didn't stop us from waging World War II, and winning World War II.
Let's get on with finding out how Sept. 11 could happen, so we can prevent such a catastrophe from happening again. That seems like a reasonable goal to me.
For your reference:
The "NINE INVESTIGATIONS" of the attack on Pearl Harbor, in chronological order:
A brief description of the investigations leading up to the Congressional Committee's investigation.
The Knox Investigation Dec. 9-14, 1941.
The Roberts Commission Dec. 18-January-23, 1941
The Hart Investigation Feb. 12-June 15, 1944
The Army Pearl Harbor Board Jul. 20-Oct. 20, 1944
The Navy Court of Inquiry Jul. 24-Oct. 19, 1944.
The Clarke Investigation Aug. 4-Sep 20, 1944
The Clausen Investigation Jan. 24-Sep. 12, 1945
The Hewitt Inquiry May 14-July 11, 1945
The Joint Congressional Committee Nov. 15, 1945-May 23, 1946
My son is a commercial airline pilot for a major airline. How dare the Bush administration put him and the thousands like him, their aircraft and crews as well as their passengers and thousands on the ground in danger by not giving the airlines and thus, the airline staff and crews the forknowledge to recognize a different kind of threat with a hijacking. Anger does not begin to describe what I am feeling. Meanwhile, John Ashcroft flies on a private US government aircraft for a weekend golf game. Disgusting!
Peggy in TX
If we as democrats or Americans let these lying trifecta (remember those words) rebuplicans sweep this under the rug without a vigorous debate with all the facts on the table (please remember the Bin Laden family was escorted out of the U.S. without any interrogation-Carlye Group? (where was Ashcroft?) after the attacks of 9/11) then we deserve everything they shove down our throats-it's time to strand up and make waves-can you do it-if this would have happened to Al Gore the world would have stopped for these bombastic Limbaugh disinformation masters and they would have given no slack to any liberal democrat-you either stand up and fight or we are going to lose the fight for our country and freedom-Remember these words, "I just hit the trifecta" -- doesn't that just piss you off?
You might want to ask yourself these questions:
Was Bush's month long "vacation" prior to 9-11 prompted by the same threats that took Ashcroft off of all commercial flights? What was the rationale for the "war plan" that was sitting on Bush's desk on 9-11? Did it have to do with "war for oil"? (Unical has just been given the contract for the Afghanistan pipeline, as was long planned and well decribed on numerous oil industry websites).
How is it that three pre-9-11 newspaper articles (still available on the net) detail an October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S.? Did this threat prompt the attacks?
Given that the Italian government prohibited all air traffic over the Genoa Summit for fear that a suicide bomber in a commercial aircraft might attack the site, how is it that Bush and his advisors were unable to "connect the dots"? How is it that none of our heavily funded security agencies could do this (or did they?) while the Italians could?
Why did the Bush administration force the FBI to stop all investigations of the Bin Laden family prior to 9-11? Why has the press refused to mention Bush's business connections to Bin Laden's older brother (who was a major investor in Bush's first oil company)?
The question is not whether Bush knew about a specific plot, but whether he SHOULD have known. The question is whether Bush and his team took all the necessary action to make sure they were alerted and whether they had acted upon prior recommendations to improve terrorism reporting.
The answer is a resounding "No". Bush blew off Gore's report because -- it was Gore's report. Bush blew off the Hart Rudman report because it was commissioned by Clinton. If Bush had acted on either one of those detailed reports, would a system have been in place that COULD HAVE connected the dots? That is the true question that should be asked. Unfortunately, I think we all suspect the answer and it is not pretty.
I read your article. No story I have read mentions the fact that a man flew a small plane into the White House in 1994. This should have been enough to put the idea of deliberately flying a plane into a building into the administration's mind.
At 03:27 PM 5/17/02 -0400, you wrote: >So, this will be the official spin. Whenever any Democrat asks a >question we will be called unpatriotic or accused of trying to >politicize the tragedy.
As if Bush and the boys have not "politicized" the tragedy? Bush does not claim to have "hit the trifecta" for no reason at all. 9/11 was the single defining event for its primary beneficiary...George W. Bush.
One key question in any investigation will be: "who was "in the room" when the decision was made to reject the request for a FISA warrant (to search Moussaoui's e-mails and phone records -- which probably would have led them to Atta and others). Was Ashcroft? Were any of the Rehnquist-appointed FISA judges?
They gotta get some people under oath and start asking questions. They gotta subpeona all records relating to that request. Of course, the Administration would probably refuse and the Supreme Court will issue some twisted logic to support them. Wanna bet that's where a lot of this ends up?
A BuzzFlash Reader
Jim Pavitt, Deputy Director for Operations, CIA Address to Duke University Law School Conference April 11, 2002 (as delivered)
The Deputy Director for Operations of the CIA stated in April that they warned that al Qaeda was planning a major strike. There was a warning - no need to question that. There was a warning - most likely a strong warning if there is no need to question that there was a warning.
Ok - I give up - just who did they warn?
"There was very high concern about potential attacks in Paris, Turkey and Rome, and [the administration] acted so far as to suspend nonessential travel of U.S. staff," Rice said.
Wow. That's buried in the middle of the article -- the situation was serious enough for them to warn their own people, but screw warning the American people....
That's Rice trying to DEFEND Bush's lack of action.
Today's BartCop has a very interesting story (down toward the end of the volume) about James Woods. According to BC, Woods flew on one of the WTC planes several days before 9-11 and reported four suspicious Middle Easterners to a flight attendant. After the flight he was met at the terminal by an FBI agent to whom he passed the same information. I wonder what the FBI guy did with the info.
Also, Ari and the rest of the Bush liars are full of it when they ask the question, "Who could have imagined a plane being used as a weapon (I'm paraphrasing the question)?" I'll bet plenty of military and intel types read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor and saw Executive Decision, the movie with Kurt Russell and Steven Seagal.
I also particularly love Condi making the possibility of a hijacking seem so routine. I get the impression that they were perfectly willing to accept a hijacking or two as just the price of doing business.
As a final frightening thought, what will these clowns feel free to do if the Republicans get complete control of Congress?
Sent to Bill O'Reilly:
Bill I notice that you had Ann Coulter on to promote her upcoming book, in the interest of balance will you have David Brock on? Also, I thought that you would have the guts to ask Ann about her "kill Lefty" statement at CPAC.
She said: "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors." -- Ann Coulter, CPAC convention, February 2002
Do you think that that is an appropriate statement for a conservative to make. When is it proper to speak out in favor of intimidating those who don't agree with you. If someone from the left had made that statement about conservatives I feel that you would not let them go unquestioned about it. Where is that no-spin balance you promise.
As for liberal bias, you gotta be joking--here's my take:
The biggest lie in today's media is that it is liberal. In what could be the greatest act of magical misdirection since Houdini, it seems that the right-wing republicans have conned us into believing that there is a liberal media bias. It seems if you whine about something long enough people will believe that it is true. Are we to believe that this left-leaning media conspiracy exposed itself? Then how do we know? We have been told this by our "honest" media mavericks. They even have their own channel, FOX (fair & balanced?) news. Integrity is the word that comes to mind when I hear Ollie North or G. Gordon Liddy, who are convicted felons, talk about the rule of law. I am grateful that god has finally intervened and given us so many independent "thinkers" in the media. The neutrality of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, John McLaughlin, Robert Novak, William Safire, Kate O'Beirn, Jonah Goldberg, Michael Medved, Andrew Sullivan, Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, John Fund, and Matt Drudge is truly amazing. Wait these people are all conservative commentators, and I left out the C-P's favorites Linda Chavez, Cal Thomas, and Michele Malkin. The list goes on endlessly, in fact there are far more consevative commentators than liberal ones. This myth of the liberal media is a joke. Today conservatives have the loudest voice in the media. They misdirect your attention with some Clinton bashing and sneek in their agenda. Tax cuts for the rich are like chicken soup-a magical solution to all problems.
I reported you decide--am I wrong?
thank you, stevie gardiner
Just had to comment on today’s press briefing where White House DJ Ari “spindoctor” Fleischer made a half baked attempt to portray Bush as somehow engaged in combating terrorism by giving examples from speeches Bush made since becoming a candidate.
Note a couple of important things. Of the 800 or so public speeches Bush made prior to 9/11 Ari could only come up with three examples. That’s because the only time Bush mentions terrorism, it’s either a commercial for missile defence, or has to do with circumstances applicable to another country.
Take particular note of Ari’s #1 choice, it was way back in 99 (In Sept actually Ari, not Feb). He chose it because it was Bush’s strongest statement on terrorism...and spooky in it’s clairvoyance. Problem is, for the next 2 years he barely mentions terrorism, except to justify missile defence.
To the contrary, Ari’s attempt to show Bush as being engaged in fighting terrorism actually proves he wasn’t.
Here are those selected quotes in a bit more context. Feel free to go to http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/speeches.phtml?id=CNIP9043 yourselves and search through Bush’s public statements using words like Terrorism.
Fleischer: …at the Citadel on February 23rd, 1999. If you recall, that's a speech that the White House handed out to you in the aftermath of September 11th, because in many ways, it showed the priority that this President was bringing to office about the need to fight terrorism. And he said in that speech at the Citadel, "And there is more to be done preparing here at home. I will put a high priority on detecting and responding to terrorism on our soil."
Bush: We will defend the American homeland by strengthening our intelligence community – focusing on human intelligence and the early detection of terrorist operations both here and abroad. And when direct threats to America are discovered, I know that the best defence can be a strong and swift offense – including the use of Special Operations Forces and long-range strike capabilities.
And there is more to be done preparing here at home. I will put a high priority on detecting and responding to TERRORISM on our soil. The federal government must take this threat seriously – working closely with researchers and industry to increase surveillance and develop treatments for chemical and biological agents.
Fleischer: In March, on March 4th, 2001, when the President went to participate in the christening of the Ronald Reagan, in Newport News, Virginia, the President said, "Our present dangers are less concentrated, and more varied. They come from rogue nations, from terrorism." And he went on.
Bush: Today's world is different from the one he faced and changed. We are no longer divided into armed camps, locked in a careful balance of terror. Yet, freedom still has enemies. Our present dangers are less concentrated and more varied. They come from rogue nations, from TERRORISM, from missiles that threaten our forces, our friends, our allies and our homeland. Our times call for new thinking. But the values Ronald Reagan brought to America's conduct in the world will not change.
This one doesn’t even fit at all. It’s a statement dealing specifically with weapons of mass destruction and doesn’t really address terrorism.
Fleischer: And finally, the President on May 8th, in a statement that you all have, issued a statement about domestic preparedness against weapons of mass destruction. And that was a warning from the President about protecting America's homeland and citizens from the threats of weapons of mass destruction, as one of our nation's most important national security challenges.
Bush: Protecting America's homeland and citizens from the threat of weapons of mass destruction is one of our Nation's important national security challenges. Today, more nations possess chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons than ever before. Still others seek to join them. Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of the world's least-responsible states -- states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life. Some non-state terrorist groups have also demonstrated an interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
Today’s bonus quote:
I was serious when I said to the Russians that you can deal with TERRORISM in your own country, but you've overstepped the bounds of decency when you're bombing innocent women and children and creating over 200,000 refugees.
George W. Bush, Meet the Press, 11/21/1999
How did Mrs. Bush know what he was briefed on?
Meanwhile, in Budapest, Laura Bush emphatically defended her husband this morning and called it "very sad that people would play upon the victims' emotions" by suggesting that he had not done enough to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington Post staff writer Ann Gerhart reported.
The intelligence briefing that President Bush received in August while the couple were on vacation at their Crawford ranch "was so inspecific that there was no way you could predict what would have happened," she said in an interview with White House reporters traveling with her on her European tour to support rebuilding in Afghanistan.
Defends Self on Warning Controversy (washingtonpost.com).url>>
I cannot breathe. I am sick to my stomach most of the day. What should I be afraid of now? Maybe it's my government. No, I'm sure it's my government. I think I have known this for quite a long time. Tried to "enlighten" people, but was told to "get over it." In fact, today, someone used those very words to me. I'm scared for this country and the rest of the world. Please someone, just someone who is not afraid of either losing their job or being denied access to prominent White House officials must stand up and tell the truth, no matter what it leads to. I would hope that Bill Clinton would be that person, but he has too much integrity. Evil does live in the White House.
If Dubya, Cheney, The Egg With Eyes, and all the rest of the cabal claim to be too clueless to do the job they were selected to do, well, they can just quit - and let's get people in there who can!
Note: Thank you for being there - what would we do without you? I was shocked to see on the morning after this startling revelation, NPR's 'Morning Edition' dedicated a full 4 - count 'em, 4 - minutes to the story. Their re-run of the Middle East conflict that morning was longer. This is the same NPR that has over-sentimentalized 9/11 almost to the point of nausea.
I think we should all forward the wonderful collection "The SPECIAL 9/11 Betrayal BuzzFlash Mailbag: Patriotic, Honest, Irreverent, and All-American --- The Bush 9/11 Edition, Parts I and II" to all our congresspeople and Senators. Good grief. Surely they must realize how a huge number of us feel about this simply wretched administration...
So I will. Thank you!
I wrote you over a year ago and said "Let's hope that Bush doesn't do to the American people what he did to the sate of Texas." He was one of the worst Governors the state of Texas ever had! He didn't know then how to tell the truth and he still doesn't know! Now we are finding out how he is still not able to tell the truth. When he is gets caught all we can hear is how "Unpatriotic" we are for questioning him. I think it is time for the media, Democrats and everyone else to ask the questions that need to be asked. He has done more harm to our country than any other president.
Thanks for keeping us updated on everything. I really appreciate you. Keep up the good work. I stopped taking the newspaper when I found your site and sent you what I saved and have never missed the paper.
What Did the President Know, and When Did He Lie About Knowing It?
New York Times' miserable ommission hurt the nation's well being...
http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp ( 7th paragraph )
<< The Hart-Rudman report is the kind that required elite opinion to engage in a sustained dialogue to probe, improve, explain, and then press for action. None of the network talk shows took it up. But the commissioners were particularly bewildered by the blackout at the The New York Times; they pitched an op-ed article signed by Hart and Rudman in the hope that it would induce the Times to take a proper look at the commission's work. The article was rejected. Newspapers, by their nature, are bound to miss stories from time to time; a good newspaper will then follow up, trying to recover. There was no attempt to repair the omission in the Times or the Journal. The performance of the Times, the country's leading newspaper, is curious since it has distinguished itself over the years by giving prominence to Saddam Hussein's mischiefs, and to notable front-page reports by Judith Miller, William Broad, and Stephen Engelberg on the threats of bioterrorism. Its editorials on state-sponsored terrorism have been robust. Inquiries to the Times failed to elicit a response....>>
WE KNEW: WARNING GIVEN...STORY MISSED
We were warned. Some of the best minds in the United States attempted to alert the nation that, without a new emphasis on homeland security and attention ...
Pugs are waging a furious war to characterize the rightful questions of Democrats as pure politics. But it was political strategist Karl Rove who told Pugs that Bush would campaign on the events of 9-11.
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 bi-partisan 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 bi-partisan report: http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp.
I dont have the links for you now. But I am certain that Bush stayed on a boat during the summer '01 meetings in Italy.
For the sole reason of reported AIRPLANE SUICIDE ATTACKS.
I just wanted to alert you to that, I think it has a HUGE bearing on your story and shows without a doubt that Bush has lied.
I would be glad to dig up any articles I copied and saved, and links to major news reports.
Just reply and let me know.
Thanks! Kelley Kramer
[BuzzFlash Note: We found this comment, "The head of Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service has warned of a plot by terrorist Osama bin Laden to assassinate George W. Bush at the summit and the U.S. President may be staying at U.S. Camp Darby military base in Livorno or offshore on the American aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise to avoid any terrorist risk," in this story: http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/17/genoa.security/. Very interesting. Maybe they told Bush he was going for a "fun boat ride" so as not to worry his parents.]
I also wanted to mention that the actor, James Woods, went from the east coast to the west coast on the same flight that was hijacked later and it was widely reported that he turned in the five men riding in the plane with him. He was convinced they were up to no good. You probably saw him too. I am not sure it made it on the Internet. I saw him several times on TV and he said that he was very concerned that these guys were going to do something and he notified the flight attendants and the captain of the flight. He said they were the hijackers and he recognized their pictures after 911. He said he was interviewed by the FBI extensively. I think he said this on Jay Leno. That was one more chance of those guys being caught, but was apparently ignored too.
[BuzzFlash Note: Bartcop has a piece on the James Wood airplane incident.]
While denying that he knew anything of substance about 9/11 prior to the attack, did anyone notice that George Bush had exactly the same look on his face that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had when they were lying to the public. They hunker down one shoulder forward, stern face, direct eye contact with camera and speak in slow, firm, measured words. It's always the same look, and the lie always comes out. It came out for Richard, came out for Bill and it will come out for George.
In the last 24-hrs, claims by Bush that an offensive was about to be taken pre-9/11 against Al Qaeda/Taliban in Afghanistan. Why then, is the mainstream press not covering his oil negotiations with them and about to use the "offensive" if they didn't "play ball?"
I don't know if this angle has already been discussed, but the latest flap about the Bush team witholding warnings of terrorist attacks has jogged a related thought that might bear some research: Aside from whatever evidence has surfaced since the Afghanistan campaign (home-movies of Sammy with the cleric gang, etc), I don't recall yet any release of the the evidence that prompted the U.S. to accuse Bin Laden of the WTC attacks. As I remember it now, the story was that there was evidence, a lot of it, and really good stuff too, but it wasn't "in the interests of national security" to disclose any of the evidence at the time.
While I bear no urgent doubts that Al Qaeda et al are the true perpetrators of the attacks, the incongruity of the situation always struck me, as months after the first retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan the papers all were still using language to the effect that Bin Laden was the "suspected" mastermind behind the WTC disaster. Consider that for a moment: leaving aside our own history as a nation at war, since when in the history of "justifiable military action" has a country been invaded and reduced to rubble on the pretext of a "suspicion?" I always thought we could do better than that, and eventually settled into the assumption that some proof had been found and distributed at some point along the line while I wasn't looking. What occurs to me now is that the evidence cited but witheld by Team Bush is one and the same preponderance of warnings received from foreign intelligence sources ranging from the Russians to the Mossad. In other words, what allowed us to point the finger so quickly to Bin Laden is the very wealth of intelligence of imminent attacks ignored by the Bush administration; and the "national security threat" posed by releasing that evidence was in fact a threat to the political standing of our Fearless Leader, and that other guy on the plane (the one whose Kodak moment of 9/11 is currently selling for $150 a pop). As I suggested earlier, maybe this has already been exhumed and dissected by more capable researchers than myself (preferably someone with a Lexis account), but following the news as I do from an internet cafe in Taiwan, it's easy for vital discussion to slip betweenthe cracks. If you guys have something in your archives about the original evidence being suppressed (or hell, I can search for that from here myself) this might be a good time to repost it.
Keep up the good work. You and the other opposition sites are scoring wonderful strikes against the Bush Occupation. I find it cheering beyond expression to see the names of sites such as BuzzFlash and MWO gain repeated mention in the national media.
Here's my opinion on what the Bushies are hiding-the meeting between the Taliban and oil/politicols in Houston in Feb./March 2001. I think the cowboy/rambos tipped their hand by threatening the Taliban and demanding oil/Bin Laden in that order. I think war/military action was discussed and Al-Queda made the pre-emptive strike on 9/11/2001. Condi Rice confirmed that military plans against them were on her desk,in her spin conference Thursday. If only some reporter would remove their lips from Bushes butt and ask if Omar and Co. were in town.
I turned on CNN this morning and caught one of the talk show hosts questioning four reporters about the 9/11 warnings. The bottom line of the discussion was that the Clinton administration was involved and did not take any action on a report that was issued in 1999. I was totally amazed. When are reporters going to start looking and questioning what this Bush administration is doing to this country? The blame game for all actions from 2001 through now is still Clinton's fault. Karl Rove and the Bush cronies have the reporters brainwashed and again Bush will come out of this situation looking good. In fact, Clinton and the Democrats will get the blame.
Also, I noticed that Democratic leaders are starting to soften their questioning of what Bush knew and when he knew it. When are they going to stand up to this administration? They are afraid of being perceived as unpatriotic. But to question why warnings were ignored is not being unpatriotic, in fact it is their duty to do so.
Dick Cheney, Laura Bush and Ari have all made statements that to question anything this administration does is being against the war effort. Since when in this country, is questioning anything being unpatriotic. We are living in a democracy, or are we?
PS Keep up the good reporting!
What short memories we all have. Think back to what Bush was doing during his first months in office. He flew from city to city, appearing before friendly audiences only and definitely out of sight of First Amendment zone protestors, to promote his tax cut. This tired him out so much he needed a month's vacation in Crawford. Then 9/11 happened. What has he been doing since then? Bush has been traveling around the country delivering the same speech on patriotism and compassion to pre-selected audiences over and over again. After each such speech, Bush then went to a fund-raiser for the Republican Party. Since we are at war, shouldn't he spend more time at the White House?
Recently we learned that Condeleeza Rice is an accomplished pianist. She is also a talented tap dancer. Consider her March 16th press conference. Condi and Ari would make a wonderful dance team. Speaking of Ari, why did he find it necessary to single out Hillary to criticize? Is this the tack the Bush administration is going to take? Blame the Clintons (either one) and the Democrats for their failings.
Not Enough BuzzFlash Mail You? Click Here For a Second Serving of the 5/20 BuzzFlash Mailbag!
otherwise noted, all original