Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

bush is lying; so what was redacted on the 911 Commission report???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-12-05 12:58 AM
Original message
bush is lying; so what was redacted on the 911 Commission report???
We know for absolute 100% proven FACT that Condi Rice LIED when she said "no one could have known" and "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration" and "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to" and the August 6th PDB "did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information, and it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."

All total LIES proven and fully documented as LIES.

Then 2 weeks ago, another 911 Commission report, which was intended as an addendum to the commission's full report, was released, and we find out nearly half of the Federal Aviation Administration's daily intelligence reports in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks mentioned al Qaeda. 52 warnings.

The report, completed Aug. 26, was intended as an addendum to the commission's full report. But the Bush administration spent months blacking out material it considered secret. The report was sent to the Archives on Jan. 28 with large chunks deleted.

Several commissioners and lawmakers charged that the deletions were unnecessary. "There's nothing affecting national security that I can see in the redactions," says Tom Kean, who chaired the commission.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-10-faa-warnings_x.htm

So that leaves the obvious question: what was redacted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC