At what point does INCOMPETENCE fail as an explanation

[Beam Me Up]

I just posted some of this in another thread but I want it to have its own for comment:

At what point does INCOMPETENCE fail as an explanation for events that are so "coincidental" that they strain credulity.

Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11built around a plane crashing into a building
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/08/21/national1518EDT0686.DTL
JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, August 21, 2002
(08-21) 15:08 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident. ....

Even though the news media (CBS 60 minuites, for example) had been brain washing--a'hmm I mean, informing us for YEARS that Osama might be planning an attack inside the US, these folks just "COULDN'T HAVE IMAGINED" that a thing like 9/11 could occur.

Mineta: "I don't think we ever thought of an aircraft being used as a missile. We had no information of that nature at all."
Rice: "All this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking."
Bush: "Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets - never."

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html

Come on folks WAKE UP!! 9/11 was a COVERT OPERATION designed to do PRECISELY WHAT IT DID: Terrorize the US population into accepting the "Patriot Act", the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq and the "endless war on terrorism" that follows from it.

IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE ORCHESTRATED FROM WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE. This was a COVERT OPERATION most likely carried out by quasi-military CORPORATE OWNED MERCENARIES (which is what I'm beginning to think "terrorists" are) with aid from a VERY FEW PEOPLE in very key positions in the military, intelligence and government.
---------
Not once but TWICE, * Bush said that he saw the first plane hit the WTC. This was BEFORE he went into the photo-op at the grade school. Frankly, I'm coming to the conclusion that FOR ONCE, Bush is telling us the truth. He DID see it on a closed circuit secure live video feed from New York while riding inside the presidential limosine on the way to the school (just before 9 am.) Yes, he could just be CONFUSED or MISTAKEN. But then again, perhaps he is simply relaying what he actually saw, forgetting that THE REST OF US DID NOT SEE THIS. We didn't see video of the first plane's hit until the next day.

As Documented On the White House Web Site, BUSH SAID:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html

I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it.

Bush's "interesting day":
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

EDIT TO ADD: Those pictures of the plane on fire inside the courtyard of the Pentagon? Those are from an emergency preparedness exercise dated OCTOBER 2000. But no one could have imagined it.

[HomeSchoolTeach]

1. Oh please

Sure our security probably bungled 9-11, but when kooks say it was carried out by our people...PLEASE stop, will you?

[Beam Me Up]

2. NO

I will NOT stop.

Edited to add: And I am not a "kook" no matter what you think.

I understand that as terrifying as the prospect of terrorists are, it is MUCH more terrifying to contemplate that all this death and destruction was deliberately fomented by madmen who BELIEVE what they are doing is dictated by National Security Interests. I do not DOUBT that they believe this. I also do not DOUBT that they are WRONG.

[Nite Owl]

6. It's in their ball park now

and they have lots of questions to answer. Too many coincidences for incompetence.

[mouse7]

21. Oh please, this disruption was very poorly done.

You can disrupt better than that. Check out the conservative underground website. They have tips there.

Maybe you'll last more than 6 posts before being tombstoned next time.

[Old and In the Way]

23. Perhaps none of your home schoolin' has prepared you for

these kind of discussion threads.

Either he was totally incompetent or he was Dick Cheny's handpupet for the PNAC plan to get the "Pax Americana" program underway.

It really matters not to me. He is responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans because he did not react to the gathering threat. He should be impeached and then we can try him and decide what a fitting punishment is for someone who violated his oath as President.

Since you have nothing to refute in your post, I suspect that you have a lot of reading to do. Let me suggest starting in the DU archives around 1/20/01 and start catching up. By the time next November arrives you ought to be on the same page with most of the posters here.

[napi21]

3. I disagree with one point

I know I saw a clip on CNN that showed the first plane hit the tower. I must admit, I thought that had to be a really bad pilot! I was still watching CNN when the second plane hit and I knew this was no accident, this was an ATTACK!

I do agree with the rest of your post...that incompentence is NO excuse. As with any job, you may have tried to do your best, but if your best isn't good enough, YOU'RE OUT OF HERE!!!!

[Beam Me Up]

5. You saw footage of the first plane hit on the morning of 9/11?

What camera was pointed at the first tower and "just happened" to be broadcasting that footage? Bush is relaying WHAT HE SAW prior to 9am on 9/11.

The only footage I've seen of the first tower being struck was that taken by the French film crew making the documentary on NY Firemen. They were out in the street covering the firemen when the first plane flew over. The sound of this naturally drew the photographer to point upward and follow the plane where it hit the tower.

This video footage, however, was NOT being broad cast at the time. MOREOVER, this footage was inside the camera of the documentarian WHO THEN PROCEEDED TO FOLLOW THE FIREMEN AS THEY RESPONDED TO THIS EMERGENCY INTO THE LOBY OF THE WTC ITSELF. It wasn't until hours later, if not the next day, that any footage of the first plane hit was broadcast on TV.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[napi21]

7. I have no idea about camera pointing. But I did see

CNN broadcast footage of destruction at the Trade Center. I don't know that it was the actual plane hitting the tower or a few seconds later. I think I remember hearing something about this being from someone filming something else and just caught this because they were there.

[Beam Me Up]

9. "footage of the destruction"

Yes, there were cameras showing the smoke and distruction not long after the impact. But there was no broadcast of the actual impact at the time.

Considering that they might have died in one of the worst disasters of modern times, the French brothers Gedeon and Jules Naudet are remarkably cool and calm about what they saw and filmed at the World Trade Center on 11 September. ,snip.

Jules had gone out with a fire crew checking a suspected gas leak. They heard a plane. Jules panned his camera up and remembers how he even saw the American Airlines logo on the aircraft.

It was he who took the now famous shot of that first plane smashing into the North Tower.

He then followed the firefighters into the building.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2236210.stm

[jmags]

11. But were you the President at a time when the US

government was seeing unprecedented theat levels. Were you given a PDB saying Al Queda had shown patterns of hijackings and had scouted buildings in New York...with a title saying "Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States?" Were you the president who recieved dozens of warnings of an attack coming from government leaders across the globe, including one delivered by Putin himself? Were you the President who was apparently overseeing a radical shift in counterterrorism policies from "rolling back" to "elimination" because you apparently realized the threat terrorism posed?

The point being, it is perfectly acceptable for the average American to first conclude that the first plane must have been an accident.
But when you are the President, knowing the things they knew, it is beyond reason to think they can hear of a commercial plane flying into the number one terrorist target in the world, on a perfectly clear day, and brush it off as an accident. I can't even wrap my head around how to possibly let that slide as an explanation.

When you add in the fact that we not only knew the plane was hijacked, but knew the identity of the hijackers before the plane ever crashed, it seems to be criminal negligence that this President, and all of advisors, let him go on a ridiculous photo op for more than an hour after they knew the US was under attack.

There are no excuses for their actions that day. None.

[napi21]

15. I agree, but I don't understand why

if Bush did understand what had happened, he would have not gone immediately to the plan of flying to the secret off site place to preserve the Presidency. I guess I can't believe the Secret Service wouldn't have forced him to do that!

Yes, I know the President can over rule the SS and just stay in the classroom, but it seems like real stupidity.

[Beam Me Up]

16. I want to UNDERSCORE what you just said

The President of the United States had been receiving recent Intelligence indicated there were threats against American landmarks in Washington and New York . So, he wants us to BELIEVE that his first thought upon seeing "this plane fly into the first building" was "I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake." This is what he WANTS us to believe. Do YOU believe that?

What is the truth, here folks?

1: Bush is mistaken or is lying. He DID NOT see the first plane fly into the WTC. He is confused. Or making up a story to make himself sound important. Or stoned. Or SOMETHING! And yet he says this not once but TWICE.

2: Bush is telling the truth. He DID see the first plane fly into the WTC before going into the classroom. "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower." STUPIDLY he thought, "I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot."

Clearly HE WANTS US TO THINK HE HAD NO IDEA THIS COULD BE A TERRORIST ATTACK OR AN ACT OF WAR. This is supposed to explain his TOTAL LACK OF RESPONSE to what he says he knew was taking place.

Where was he "sitting" before he went into the classroom? He was "sitting" in the presidential limosine (which we know to be stocked with high-tech communications equipment) on the way to the school from his motell. See the timeline linked in the original post. Is THAT where the president was at 8:46 am on Tuesday morning 9/11 when the first plane hit the WTC? Was the President watching a secure, closed circuit broadcast of the plane actually striking the tower as it happened? If so, WHO was taking THOSE pictures?

Absolutely unbelievable, isn't it? Not possible. And, even if by some insanity he WAS a witness to mass murder, WHY WOULD HE EVER ADMIT IT?

But that is just it, folks. We don't KNOW why the man who calls himself the President of the United States of America SAID these things, not once, but TWICE. We DON'T KNOW. No one has ever asked him why he said these things. The PRESS hasn't asked him. The COMMITTEE appointed to investigate these matters hasn't asked him. No one ELSE has asked him. AND THAT, I maintain, IS ITSELF HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS. Why do we have NO EXPLANATION for this? Either he is mistaken or he is lying or he is telling the truth. Either he saw it or he didn't. Either he was caught completely off guard or he is dissembling.

WHICH IS IT, MR pRESIDENT?

[Old and In the Way]

25. Let's assume, for the moment it was a CCTV he saw it on.

I would think that Cheney/Rove/Card et al would have told him that this was not for public consumption. No, I think he was referring to the TV outside the classroom that was on while he was conferencing with COndi back in DC.

But I do think the "one bad pilot" reference was made on purpose. He's conveying the idea that this was a surprise to him and his administration. Without the PDB, he might have gotten away with it. That is the only hard document we've seen that puts the words "airplanes", "explosives", "New York City", and "terrorists" in the same memo only weeks earlier. And let's not forget that he had a portable SAM battery at the resort he was staying at the night before. Someone was thinking about a terrorist attack using airplanes.

Yes, he could have see the event by CCTV and let it slip(I recall that there was an group of Israeli's filming the event on top of a moving van in NJ), but I really doubt that they'd have risked such a potential smoking gun.

[Beam Me Up]

32. WHAT "TV outside the classroom that was on..."

I think he was referring to the TV outside the classroom that was on while he was conferencing with COndi back in DC.

Perhaps you are right. But I have yet to find ANY PUBLISHED REPORT that there even was a "TV outside the classroom." In fact, what I read somewhere is that the teachers of Booker Elementary when asked about this said that the TV was NOT even on!

So, what the hell is he talking about?

More to the point, WHY THE HELL DON'T WE KNOW?

Why can't we get ANSWERS to even the most BANAL questions?

Either he saw it or he didn't.

If he didn't, he's either lying or he's confused. FINE; one more time the commander in chief of the United States of America is CONFUSED about events that almost EVERYONE remembers with considerable precision from that day. These answers were given to questions about where he was and what was going through his mind on that morning.

Even if he didn't "SEE" it, GIVEN ALL THE WARNINGS AND HEIGHTENED SECURITY HOW COULD HE BELIEVE WHAT HE SAW OR WAS TOLD ABOUT WAS AN "ACCIDENT"? How could he just GO ON WITH HIS DAY as if nothing significant or news worthy OR EVEN INTERESTING was happening?

If he DID see it, then we need to know HOW. HOW was it possible for him to SEE the first plane hit?

[rustydog]

4. Concern about Shrub's intelligence and experience

in the 2000 election prompted the Shrubster to claim that he would "surround himself with the best and the brightest Administration and return Honor and Integrity to the White House.

Here is Bush*s best and brightest:

Dick (undisclosed location) Cheny
Neo-Condi (Terrorists did not give us their apartment addresses or we would hav earrestedt them) Rice
Colin (these drawings of mobile labs are based on facts) Powell
Donald (old europe) Rumsfeld
Snowe Job (treasury secty)

Aiders and abettors:
Rush Limpballs, Bill O'really, Larry King, Richard Perle, William Kristol,Richard Mellon-Sciafe, Ken Lay, Skilling, Tyco CEO, Tom Delay,
Neutered Gingrich.

If this is the Republican party's best and brightest, no wonder our economy, the job market, gas prices, world public opinion, Afghanistan and Iraq are such great cluster-fucks.

[Selwynn]

8. Depraved Indifference.

[Beam Me Up]

10. No longer "incompetence" now we have "indifference"?

As DEPRAVED as it indeed would have to be?

I think SAVAGE would be a more accurate term. "Indifference" still has about it an air of mediocrity that I simply WILL NOT ACCEPT.

[Selwynn]

29. GO you.

[Stephanie]

12. Criminal Negligence

Was it deliberate? That's the only thing we don't know yet.

I keep going back to the vacations. They knew, and they split town and saved themselves but otherwise did nothing about it to save anyone else. THAT's the treason.

[opihimoimoi]

13. It was only a month before that he was WARNED of this poissibility

worse, he said nothing to the rest of America. He let us hang there as targets.

What a guy.

[calimary]

14. Criminal negligence AND gross dereliction of duty.

[undergroundpanther]

19. Why

Is it so hard for people to admit our country is controlled by bad people? Bad people who fooled us by pretending to be good people Powerful liars who manipulate and will even hurt others to dominate the world?

C'mon people it isn't a conspiracy it's the way power and politics is..In America the rulers put up an illusion of'freedom' and say power is shared when it is still concentrated to them. If not bush himself it's Bush's crowd of assholes they knew about 9//11 they instigated it and they planned it.

If you think in the way that elitist rich mercenaries who think they are entitled to use people would think it's easy to see why they'd do this kind of crime to the American People.They do not care about us they just SAY they do..WE do not MAKE them care..Power itself has no morality from within itself at the top.Morality must be imposed upon the top of the power structure from the bottom up. Politics is in fact Machiavellian manipulations it's all about appearances..

Whom of the top 1% of the powerful or super wealthy of these "elites" died in 9/11? ...-0-
How many middle,working class people died on 9/11?

And to the elites we are numbers on spreadsheets,dupes,slaves. The wear mongers and power brokers profit from death tragedy,disasters, deprivation,sickness and misery. They only care if it's a threat of death,poverty and danger that might be directed to members of their own "elite" cabal that matters to them.

This kind of unspeakable corruption is possible only when there is a public in denial that power can be corrupted.Corruption needs a public that is ignorant,misinformed,scared,too trusting and too complacent. .The powerful need a public to be in denial,about the nature of power...this is a way corrupted power is kept concentrated throughout history.
So of course when the powerful and rich today fuck up like the powerful throughout the history of civilization do,they want to maintain control over what is said.They cover ass. Just like the WH today is covering ass,playing games about the questions and responses to 9/11 So, if they can't control us they will try suppression (patriot acts)if that fails they need to find a way or want to get away from us(mars? underground hidey holes ) or kill us off(bio terrorism that just "happens").

How else can they save themselves from the wrath of all the furious citizens they duped ,misused their trust,profited off of, abused,used up, lied to ,exploited and dominated for so long? They want to drain us as long as they can before the shit hits the fan.Soon they fear they will have to pay the piper and be held accountable for their corruption clubs actions and harm if they do not escape or distract us from what they are doing with something sensational show real quick.

[Beam Me Up]

24. "unspeakable corruption is possible only when there is a public in denial"

Well said!

So many people, EVEN HERE AT DU, need to come out of denial. No one wants to believe that the ILLUSION of democracy is just that. We'd rather live in an ILLUSION of democracy than face the HORRIFYING TRUTH >> The elites of this world DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT US. We are not of their class. They not only ALLOW wars, they FOMENT them. They PROFIT from them. They WANT us to be at one another's throats: right against left, white against brown, Christian against Muslim against Jew, capitalist against communist against socialist--WHATEVER! They'll fund EVERY SIDE of ANY CONFLICT just to make sure we never get a CLUE about where the REAL power lies.

[Selwynn]

30. Depraved Indifference definition

Since I coined the term for use in this context, I'll define what I mean:

Depraved Indifference still seems to be what we have come closest to proving, aka. a "weak" LIHOP in which the Bush Administration had enough evidence of a threat that it should have taken more action, but did not in part because it didn't take the threat seriously, in part because it was fixated and preoccupied with its own agenda (Iraq, Star Wars, Tax Cuts) and in part because the administration had a mindset wherein if an attack like that ever were to occur, it wouldn't really be back for their agenda, bad for their administration, or bad for the country "from their point of view." Depraved indifference. But, I want to stress - I can't prove all of that. I can prove incompetence. And I can prove they had advanced knowledge of a threat. But that's all I can prove so far. However based on all the evidence to date, and taking into account the unanswered questions and demand an explanation, I think the weak LIHOP/Depraved indifference answer is most plausible at this time.

Depraved Indifference doesn't slam the door on any further investigation or any other possibility (other than that the Bush Admin was not to blame). But it neither does it act like it is absolutely conclusively certain than MIHOP or a strong LIHOP happened just because there are lots of open questions we can't answer.

And as I said on a different thread,

Because we don't have an answer to some questions, I think we should keep pressure high to get an answer, to uncover the truth. However, the fact of rational conclusion drawing is, if we can't get a factual answer to the question, then we can draw factual conclusions, only speculative ones.

That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't suspect certain conclusions, and it doesn't mean we can hold personal beliefs about what we think what conclusions the evidence really would lead to if we had it - as long as we never ever mistake that for absolute fact.

I have no problem with someone who holds beliefs about what happened - but I have a huge problem when that person tries to speak with more authority than any of us have with out conclusive answers to extremely important questions such as this one, or tries to tell someone else their wrong for speculating otherwise. Without proof, its all speculation.

But unlike some people I guess, I also accept the reality that we may - perhaps - never know for certain. What I refuse to do, is manufacture a false sense of certainty based on the irrational and emotional human need for closure and definitive conclusion drawing. By all means we should keep rigorously pressing for full, open, honest disclosure. But if that never happens, I will not "invent" a definitive answer just to fill the void. But doing that, I'm guaranteed to skew truth. Instead, I'll live with a void of uncertainty, even if I hold my own personal opinion about what happened rather than try to speak absolutely and authoritatively without all the facts.

So again, I don't mind differing opinions and personal interpretations of what a person believes most was most likely to have happened. I do mind people who treat those conjectures as absolute and ridicule other, more honest, more integritous truth seekers with higher, more appropriate standards for making objective statements.

[Beam Me Up]

35. Selwynn

Thank you. I respect your cautiousness. You are absolutely correct in you assertion that we must ALWAYS know the difference in ourselves between what has been established as fact and what is speculation and conjecture. You are saying that SO FAR you feel "depraved indifference" can be demonstrably proven. I accept that but add we must not, we can not, stop here. See my post # 27 below.

The problem is most people in this country already believe they KNOW what happened on 9/11. Those of us who have been jumping up and down on the side lines since 9/11 yelling 'WAIT, WIAT, THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE' have often been met with derision and ridicule.

The source of this "knowledge" that most people have is both the media and the government. It is right that the people should be able to TRUST, by and large, their government and their press to give them a more or less accurate picture of their world. And yet, it is an obvious FACT that both the government AND the media are denying us, the people, ACCESS to the evidence which would establish their assertions as FACTS. Government institutions do this by classifying evidence or removing it from public view (as so many agencies have done) and making it inaccessible without extremely high security clearance. "Matters of National Security." The media does this by not focusing their own investigative attention, not asking sensitive questions, not focusing our collective attention and often deflecting our collective attention when it begins to look at one "anomaly" or another.

I'll appreciate your wit regarding my use of capitals (mentioned below). I admit, I AM ANGRY. I'm very upset about what is going on in this country. I want answers. I want the various checks and balances within the system to take their appropriate roles in defense of the Constitution and the people. When I see them failing, repeatedly failing, and failing for "reasons" that strain credulity over and over and over again, I begin to question--and I believe everyone should begin to question--WHY?

If these checks and balances are NOT operating in defense of the Constitution and the people, what, precisely, ARE they protecting?

[Selwynn]

36. I apprecaite your thoughtful response, and where you are coming from...

We want the same thing. The truth. I don't believe we have it yet, and there are questions that clearly demand answers, and our leaders - all of them - should be held accountable.

[bpilgrim]

17. they DIDN'T react at all that day

they went on with a photo-op when they KNEW the highjackings were underway.

WHY?

did the political arm trump SS SOP?

their reactions, or rather gross lack there of, appears to be CRIMMINAL NEGLET at best and TREASON at worst, imho.

i know that military S.O.P. failled that day and have been promoting that angle of inquiry since day one but what about the secret service... did that agency fail as well?

but we are forced to carry on with the cartoon world view. arrrrrrgh, and so it goes...

peace

[Beam Me Up]

18. "cartoon world view"

Exactly. We're supposed to BELIEVE that what they tell us is true is true, what they tell us is real is real.

And yet, what they tell us MAKES NO SENSE. They know this so they say, WELL IT IS ONLY A COINCIDENCE that (along with hundreds of other things) the president didn't react with SHOCK and HORROR THE WAY EVERY OTHER SANE PERSON DID WHEN THEY HEARD THE NEWS. How many people do you know just WENT ON WITH THEIR DAY when they heard that an airplane had hit the WTC? And here we have this man, the pretended "leader of the free world", saying that he SAW this--and still he went on with his day. Even after hearing that YET ANOTHER PLANE HAD STRUCK and "America was under attack"--HE STILL WENT ON WITH HIS DAY.

FOR TWO AND ONE HALF YEARS we have allowed these MAD HATTERS and CHESHIRE CATS RULE our sense of SELF and WORLD. FOR WAY TOO LONG people like myself who have been asking qustions about what the flaming hell is going on have been ignored and insulted and derided!

NO MORE!

[bpilgrim]

20. well said!

i used to be tolerant of the cartoon world view... too busy.
but now i challenge it everytime it comes up in my small circle anyways.

peace

[Selwynn]

31. PLEASE USE MORE CAPS!

[Old and In the Way]

26. Will the SS testify why they did not follow SOP and leave him in the

room?

That's an interesting line of questioning. Was there an effort to remove him immediately? If not, who overrode their authority? I doubt a press aide would trump the SS in this instance.

Might be worth the 9/11 commission time to explore this odd non-action by the SS that day.

[bpilgrim]

28. yep

thats the one... and all the other that failed.

i am waiting for an official timeline from the report to see if they have any reasonable explaination.

peace

[Bushknew]

22. At what point does lack of specificity fail as an explanation?

How more specific can you get than Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States?

[Beam Me Up]

27. I understand what you are saying BUT

if we are going to prevent what happened on 9/11 from EVER happening again, we must get to the heart of the matter. That means, we must not simply "accept" that bin Laden had ANYTHING to do with this. I mean, OF COURSE he has wanted to cause a terrorist attack inside the United States. But the events of 9/11 are WAY beyond bin Laden. He's a rank amateur compared to what went on here THAT day.

Every damn day someone asks what PROOF we have that "Bush Knew" or that they "LIHOPed" or "MIHOPed" and yet these same people, day after day after day, will mechanically repeat what they've heard the media tell them over and over again: America was attacked on 9/11 by fundamentalist Muslim terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden. But what PROOF do we really HAVE of that?! Yes, we've been told this and told that repeatedly--but can we believe ANYTHING this administration tells us or the FBI tells us or the CIA tells us? Look at all the lies that have been told about Iraq--or any number of other events in recent history that we could name. But getting back to 9/11, one doesn't have to probe the official story very hard to discover that it is JUST THAT: a story, a fiction, a tale persuasively told to account for the inexplicable, the unimaginable, the unbelievable, the unthinkiable.

Meanwhile evidence is right out in the open that something is completely amiss. This has all the earmarks of a highly sophisticated covert operation--a "black op" complete with false leads and criss-crossing cover stories that include drunken fundamentalists capturing local attention by carousing loudly and wantonly with prostitutes while half heartedly learning to fly piper cubs at "flight schools" that have about as much fiscal credibility as a Mossad run moving companies.

No, we don't KNOW the answers but BY GOD WHY DON'T WE? WHY don't we have a Congress that is demanding a full investigation of who what where when and how? WHY don't we have a PRESS that is HUNGRY to delve into all these peculiarities and inconsistancies--and there are literally hundreds, possibly thousands of lead to be followed? WHY don't we have a COMMISSION of inquiry that is not only bipartisan but represents the wish of the People to have serious answers to serious questions? Why HASN'T the military held accountable those in their ranks whose duty it was to defend this nation on that morning?

The ANSWER to those questions is as difficult to accept as it is OBVIOUS: SOMEONE DOES NOT WANT US TO KNOW THE TRUTH. And this "someone" is not Osama bin Laden or George Bush or Dick Cheeny (although each of them and many others besides has his part in it). Rather, this "someone" IS THE CORRUPT SYSTEM OF CORPORATE GREED THAT OUR REPUBLIC HAS BECOME.

In the final analysis, the events of 9/11 will EITHER be the silver bullet that brings our Republic to its knees--or they will be the SHOCK that awakens us from a collective nightmare and motivates us to finally complete the revolution our forefathers started a quarter of a millennia ago. For the latter we must NOT BE SATISFIED WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN THE FULL TRUTH. Any compromise, any at all, will lead to further abuse of power, further terror, and ultimately the destruction of even the semblance of our Democracy.

The criminal elites who have hijacked our country and are driving us to tyranny will not surrender without a fight. Of that I am certain. However, we CAN do this. We MUST do this. To fail is not an option.

[Blue_Roses]

33. Obviously it doesn't

according to the media. I just posted a thread about this too after looking around for what HAD BEEN WORKING UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1398321

I don't understand how this administration keeps getting a "free ride."

[JHB]

34. Nothing is foolproof...

...against sufficiently great fools.