Since OCTers hate it when people "just ask questions"

[HamdenRice]

I'll post this link, and see whether any heads explode.

By the same token, 9/11 skeptics may enjoy it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3226757&mesg_id=3226757

[AZCat]

1. That's a lot of questions.

Are they rhetorical or are you really looking for answers?

[seemslikeadream]

2. I'm looking for answers

[AZCat]

3. Some of the questions seem a bit personal.

For example: "What's wrong with me?"

I doubt the answer to that question is the same for HamdenRice as it is for you (or me, or anyone else).

[HamdenRice]

8. I think you may be confusing a rhetorical strategy with personal issues

The post is trying to evoke the way the administration makes us question consensus reality and values. As someone wrote in a post in GD a few days ago, in democracies, politicians lie in order to deceive or cover up wrongdoing. In a fascist or totalitarian state, politicians lie to cause general confusion in the population about what is real and what isn't. That's one of the points Orwell was trying to make. It was certainly the point of Stalin's erasing Trotsky from party pictures or Brehznev's committing dissidents to mental hospitals, rather than simply putting them in prison.

"What's wrong with me" is intended to get the reader to ask what the administration is trying to evoke in them and all of us, how it is not just lying but psychologically manipulating them -- not to say that I think there is actually something wrong with me because I feel sorry for the people of New Orleans.

Didn't you read the context? The only thing "wrong" in the context of the piece, is that I feel empathy for the people of New Orleans. There is nothing "wrong" with feeling empathy for the people of New Orleans -- unless of course you are a Bush lover who thinks there is "nothing wrong" with what happened to the people of New Orleans, or with what is going on in general, which may be the way you feel about things (or may not -- I honestly have no way of knowing).

I'm surprised at the way the OCTers read that, but of course most of you are extremely, perplexingly literal minded.

Trust me -- if you ever met me in real life, you would find I'm probably the happiest person you'll ever know.

But I'm primarily a writer, and I always write in "character" even when writing in the first person.

For example, toward the end, I wrote questions about the investigation of the politicization of the Justice Department:

"What happened to the investigation of the politicization of the Justice Department? Who was doing that anyway? Is the press looking into that? Are they going to get away with that?

"Didn’t John Conyers subpoena Bush’s people to investigate that? How come they can just ignore subpoenas? Has that ever happened before?"

<end quote>

But the "real I" is perfectly aware of Rep. Conyer's investigation and subpoenas, because I've been following it closely, so it would be silly for the "real I" to ask "Who was doing that anyway?"

In other words, this is a rant "framed" (as writers say) as a rant by a first person "character" who is somewhat befuddled by events -- a character who is a stand in for, and evokes a certain emotional state in, the reader.

I think that's why several responders in that thread called reading it somewhat hypnotic.

On edit:

Looking at the first post in this subthread -- this "framing" in characater is somewhat different from just asking "rhetorical questions" although it is a "rhetorical strategy."

[AZCat]

16. Thank you for clarifying.

If you met me in real life you would probably find I'm as pedantic and literal as I seem here in this forum. I know you find this annoying sometimes, but we are who we are - I'm not going to change something so fundamental this late in life.

[vincent_vega_lives]

4. boom

:nuke:
x(

[HamdenRice]

9. "must - not - ask - questions - must - NOT - ask- questions ...

all - knowledge -that- is- known- or- will- ever- be- known- is- in- my- engineeeeerrriiiiinng- textbooooook ...

"Ahhhh .... I feel much better"

--VVL

[vincent_vega_lives]

19. Me thinks

the closest thing to an engineering textbook I own is a Home Depot DIY Home repair manual.

But thanks' I take the assumption as a complement. ;)

[AZCat]

32. Are you slyly insulting us engineers?

Maybe we have a bizarre approach to life, but we also manage to design a lot of useful things - like buildings.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Let's take one at a time

DIES IRAE

[Flatulo]

6. Wow.

Hamden - that was a very good post. I read every bit of it, and I have to admit that it really is rather overwhelming to see it all laid out like that.

You're obviously a very thoughtful person, and someone as intelligent as you are can be tortured by their own intellect and a keen awareness of the inequities of life.

I hope you would not consider me out of line if I were to offer a few strategies for living that have helped keep me relatively sane and happy (note - I may be genetically predisposed to happiness, and you may not be, so your mileage may vary)...

1. Don't sweat the fact that there are precious few things that you can actually fix.

2. Teach a child the definition of integrity and why it is so important to do the right thing even when no one is looking.

3. Give something to someone who has no way to pay you back.

4. Do some things that make you happy.

There is no way that any one person can single-handedly roll back the tide of viciousness, greed and self-centeredness that seem to have gripped our country. Getting back to being a moral people will take generations, so the future lies with the kids. That's where you have to focus.

[HamdenRice]

11. uh

maybe you should take a look at post 8. I think you misread OP in GD.

[Flatulo]

13. Gotcha. However, I think your post may have missed the mark

in at least one regard... the transition to fascist/totalitarian state usually requires the presence of a cult of personality around a leader whom the cowed populace must think of as their father and savior. Think N. Korea or Iraq under Saddam.

Bush is the most despised leader in many generations. He simply doesn't fit the bill.

[HamdenRice]

14. They certainly tried

Bush had astronomical approval ratings after 9/11 and after the fall of Baghdad. It is also pretty obvious that for the Christian right, Bush became a messianic leader at the center of a cult of personality. He spoke directly to Jesus, and crosses and halos "miraculously" appeared around him.

The fact that he has driven the country into the ground and isn't popular doesn't contradict that. Even Hitler wasn't popular in Germany in 1945.

[Flatulo]

15. Point taken. His 'base' is still firmly behind him. What I find most

frightening are the reports that our military has become a recruting ground for Christian 'holy warriors' Estimates are that as many as 30% of our armed forces are Evangelicals.

Scary.

I have a (perhaps naive) faith that Americans are by breeding too ornery to follow a cult leader into the abyss.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your perspectives. We do not agree on most of the conspiracy stuff, but I have always respected your forthrightness.

[hack89]

17. I disagree with that estimate

20 years in the Navy as an atheist and I don't see it. Have you been watching the PBS special "Carrier"? It confirms my belief that the military reflects the general population when it comes to religion.

[Flatulo]

20. I sincerely hope so. Fundies scare me.

I saw this and other stories like it...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/27/sunday/main4048492.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4048492

Edit - BTW, Hack, thanks for serving.

[Sweet Pea]

24. 24 years for me (and about to come to an end)

in the regular navy and reserves and I agree with Hack - if anything, there is a more predictable swath cut across society in the military. The word always used was "microcosm", and I have often said whenever someone bring up the fact that some military lunatic or such says "There was no plane at the Pentagon!" that the military is not and has never been exempt form having their share of fools and idiots, just like regular society.

[Flatulo]

21. I'm going to self-amend this last post...

I wanted to add this:

I believe that Americans have turned against Bush because of the perceived failings in Iraq.

If it were perceived that we were winning, I think Bush's support would be much higher.

Americans don't hate war - they just hate losing.

[quicknthedead]

23. If I could continue with your thought about Christian 'holy warriors'

I am a born-again Christian. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
From God's Word, the Bible, we find God's message that He will bless those who bless Israel, and will curse those who curse it (not a literal interpretation).

With the above said, please know I too am saddened (and know my Lord is also) that there are so many in Christian churches in America today who believe this war in Iraq is the right thing to do. They are in essence in agreement with Bush et al who are guilty of war crimes in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children because of a decision to invade a sovereign country...and that choice based upon lies.

Therefore, in essence, as Americans we are all guilty in this.

I bless Israel. I only want what is best for them. This is what God wants.
However, God is righteous and is never for doing what is wrong. He is not for lying, murder, etc...this is in reference to the actions of people...and people comprise governments.

Governments, being comprised of people, should be forthright and good, speaking the truth as much as possible. However, this is not true for governments in the world today (it never has been), including the US and Israel. With that said, as a Christian I can still love the people in these governments and still want what is best for them, which is to find the peace of God through His Son.

God, the Giver and Taker of life, is just and righteous in all His ways.
He makes no mistakes.

On the other hand, we are sinners who can not and must not judge Him for what He does or by what He allows to happen, for He is God...while we are only sinful creatures to be most pitied, who have only a glimmer of His true righteousness and majesty.

We do make mistakes...but thank God He took pity on us.

BUT GOD DEMONSTRATES HIS OWN LOVE TOWARD US
IN THAT WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS
CHRIST DIED FOR US

Sinful man is in need of salvation (there is abundant evidence of man's sin in the world, which is so easy to see). But thank God He provides the answer in His Son. He still loves us and does not want anyone to perish.

Please do not blame Him for the sins of His children (when they mistakenly want to be 'holy warriors').

This thread on reflection, as both individuals and as the People of a Country, is a good thing.
Thanks to HamdenRice for the OP--it is excellent.
And thanks, Flatulo. Your post is also good for its honesty.

THE GRASS WITHERS
THE FLOWERS FADE
BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD STANDS FOREVER

[Flatulo]

30. While I completely respect your beliefs, I cannot comprehend the

concept of 'faith' very well. People who are absolutely certain that they know what God's will is (assuming there is a God, which I do not know for a fact) often conflict with *other* people who are absolutely certain that they know God's will.

A lot of people sure get killed in the process.

I believe that we can lead moral lives without the pnecessity of a diety.

As George Costanza would say... "We're living in a SOCIETY!"

[Sweet Pea]

7. Someone needs to swicth to decaf *now* n/t

[seemslikeadream]

18. The Important Thing is

"The Important Thing is, Not to Stop Questioning" – Albert Einstein

then again I can see why you would disagree with Albert

[Sweet Pea]

25. Au Contraire

I would heartily agree with Mr Einstein, because I have no doubt that if there were REASON to continue questioning, he would.

He also said:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

[seemslikeadream]

26. Au Contraire

REASON? NOW YOU ARE THE SELF PROCLAIMED DECIDER OF WHAT IS OR IS NOT TO BE QUESTIONED

QUESTION THIS



DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER?




DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 - DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Posted by seemslikeadream on Fri May-02-08 10:56 AM

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive



White House News


NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

[hack89]

31. Every President including Carter and Clinton

have had national continuity policies. Can you even describe the significant differences between Clinton's and Bush's policies. If there are no differences, what's your point?

[seemslikeadream]

33. Show me their policies so I can study them

and then also remind me just WHO let bush off the hook for Iran Contra
























http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20872/

Clinton Kept Hotel Rwanda Open

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet. Posted January 3, 2005.



Clinton's buck-passing covered up the hideous truth that he knew about the genocide from the start, and could have done something about it.


Gender Is Hillary Clinton's Achilles Heel
No one would dare make a blatantly racist comment about Obama. Yet sexist remarks are constantly spewed at Hillary Clinton.
Apr 17, 2008

Paul Rusesabagina still won't go back to his native Rwanda. A decade ago, the courageous former hotel innkeeper saved more than a thousand lives during the genocidal rampage by Hutu death merchants against the Tutsis in Rwanda. The estimate is that a million Tutsis were killed. The movie, Hotel Rwanda, which stars Don Cheadle, and has garnered Academy Award buzz, tells the blood-drenched saga of how Rusesabagina repeatedly risked death to use his hotel to shelter Tutsi refugees. But Hotel Rwanda doesn't tell why President Clinton said and did nothing to stop that genocide, and four years after he left office, and ten years after the slaughter, he continues to hide the truth about his inaction.

During his Africa swing in 1998, Clinton stopped for a brief moment at the airport in Kisagali, Rwanda's capital, and made a bare-my-soul atonement speech to a group of genocide survivors. He blamed the genocide on leaders like himself "who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were engulfed by the unimaginable horror." As part of his atonement, Clinton showered the government with millions more in U.S. aid. Rwandan leaders and Clinton boosters cheered his feel-good words.

In his autobiography, My Life, published in June, Clinton revisited his role in the Rwanda genocide. He again publicly flagellated himself for the apathy and indifference that insured the slaughter. He fingered domestic politics, a callous Congress, a timid UN, and the shell shock of his administration over the botched rescue operation in Somalia in October 1993 that resulted in the deaths of 18 American soldiers for his administration's inaction.

But Clinton's buck-passing covered up the hideous truth that he knew about the genocide from the start, and could have done something about it. Three months before My Life came out the National Security Archive, a Washington D.C. non-government research institute sued in court and got hold of classified intelligence reports. The most damning were the eyes-only national intelligence daily reports that the CIA supplied to Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and other top administration officials on the Rwanda massacres. In the reports, diplomats, military and UN officials, aid workers, and intelligence operatives on the scene gave first hand accounts of the holocaust, and told of boasts that Hutu leaders made to wipe all Tutsis out.




http://www.allthingspass.com/uploads/html-...

Blood Diamond: Double Think & Deception
Naming the players behind the scenes


Guns and Butter interview

A look at the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U28joj6d1A...

A look at the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMMQhHuI9_Y...

A look at the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biEXCEOy_vs...

A look at the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPKcgo4Es8E...

A look at the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIM8kVSN8ug...

A look at the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (6)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_WEY7xQEhk...




oh and BTW I love Jimmy Carter but did you hear what SOME people are saying about him? TRAGIC! You'd think he had been posting on DU's 9/11 forum

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-digedlets0503.art6may03,0,4645294.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-carter_delliosmay01,0,1478676.story
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0502quickhit-maceachern02.html
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080503/POLITICS/805030320/1020/NATION
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/284514

[hack89]

35. No - you have have already demonstrated your grasp of the issue.

do your own research if you expect me to respect your views.

[seemslikeadream]

38. No you were the one to bring up the issue so PROVIDE YOUR OWN DAMN LINKS

maybe you can't, or are too lazy, so you put the burden on me?

[hack89]

39. No -show me more than a cherry picked article and a hatred of Bush

show me a well balanced, well researched understanding of the issue. You think it is significant and unique - show me.

[seemslikeadream]

41. bullshit

You're the one that challenged my post PROVE YOUR POINT, that's not my job,

[hack89]

44. Please forgive me

I was under the impression that you came to your conclusions by researching the issue and discovering that there was something unique about Bush's national continuity policy. Now I understand that you simply copied the OP from a CT site because it is in line with your views of Bush.

America has been living with a nuclear balance of terror for 60 years. Are you really saying that Bush is the first president to think about government continuity?

Here's a place to start - can you tell me what makes Bush's plan unique and particularly threatening?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

[seemslikeadream]

47. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I COPIED IT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE

but I can see why you would think it's CT :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[hack89]

49. Now answer the question

what makes it unique and threatening?

It is your interpretation that makes it CT.

[seemslikeadream]

52. Oh now it is my post

quit moving the goal post

[hack89]

56. I know it is an official document

my point is that you have no point. You are unable to understand that there is nothing unique about this plan.

[seemslikeadream]

54. hack89 posts

Now I understand that you simply copied the OP from a CT site because it is in line with your views of Bush.



then changes his mind




of couse it is though cause it came from The White House News

[seemslikeadream]

55. hack89 labels the White House News a Conspiracy Theorists Website

well that's one thing we do agree on :rofl:

[hack89]

58. No - your interpretation is what makes it CT. nt

[seemslikeadream]

60. could you point to that interpretation?

[seemslikeadream]

70. Here's an interpretation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x29661


We are one bad storm away from the implementation of National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20" (issued May 9, 2007 -http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/.html ). One can read Bush's "National Continuity" directive as an attempt to imitate Hitler's Art. 48 emergency decrees, rather than just exec. infrastructure continuity? But the Media doesn't care, and tells us our "checks and balances system of government" is just fine with "inherent" power and executive orders like this one.

In the internet media there are many with family memories that warn them when they see something that appears to give emergency power to rule by decree, and they speak out. This type of action makes folks nervous ever since Hitler used the Weimar Republic Constitution Article 48 emergency provisions to turn a democracy into a Dictatorship that had public approval. Indeed it had public approval because of its ability to sell fear, and to sell the idea that the executive was the way to handle the reasons for that fear. The Patriot Act and FEMA already give the president "rule by decree" type powers. This President under this executive order would have no problem declaring a right to rule by decree in an emergency, which in the executive order could be nothing more than just bad storm damage to unoccupied buildings.

There is a dramatic change in wording from the prior "Critical Infrastructure Protection" executive order 13010 under Clinton. Now Clinton's order 13010 of 1996 (with a tiny modification in 1998 - found at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orde ... ) also dealt with emergency services and continuity of government - but his order said he was "working with the private sector and Congress and State and local governments" and he made everything done subject to Congressional appropriations, with departments told to obey this directive only to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations. Indeed the order including keeping Congress informed and requiring coordination with the guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.

This order does not sound like it is in the same vein as the past measures approved by Congress and Appropriations committees. This is more in the vein of Lincoln's extra-legal efforts and has a "possible" scary part in:
(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

The apologists for Bush tell us that there are really secret Clinton executive orders out there (true) and that Bush didn't need extra powers via this executive order since he already had the Patriot act and its section 802, part 5:
"the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--appear to be intended--to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

The Patriot Act's Section 802, part 5 makes just about anything, including the passage of the Patriot Act, a form of "domestic terrorism" that we must be protected against.

The Progressive.org (http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx ) writes about this executive order, "Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency" that Bush has entrusted himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch, while, of course, "ensuring constitutional government" - and indeed the document does clearly state, "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government- and that sure sounds like leading all branches of government.

In the Bush order, the Clinton subject to laws language is gone, and we have the President promising the effort will be "coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers - where "matter of Comity" I am sure has its usual meaning of an act of courtesy not required by law. Despite the fact we have State and Federal laws that give methods to replace congressional, senatorial, and executive Branch Personal that die in a disaster, or in the course of life, this President wants to take upon himself the chore of ensuring that there is "orderly succession" and "appropriate transition of leadership" in the three branches of government. Indeed it is possible to read the order as allowing the President to replace the leadership of the states, and any other body, and to do so at any time as local disasters occur every day in these United States.

Our major media treats any concern as the product of the paranoid left since we now have a USSC with new Bush appointed Judges that will likely rule that any "inherent" power claim is legal - so any power grab passes the "checks and balances" test and there is no problem. We are to read the order as not a power grab beyond the prior power to lead in emergencies, and to think that this order is not about circumventing our system of representative government with assertions of new found power and God knows what in that secret annex - it is just a Continuity of Operations like the Clinton "Critical Infrastructure Protection" order.


But the "trust me" required for the above interpretation is hard after Echelon warrant-less eavesdropping on all our communications, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus which now allows the President to have anyone - citizen or not - whom the President labels with the undefined term "enemy combatant" to be grabbed off the street or dragged from his or her home and taken to any undisclosed location to be held forever with no charges and not even an admission that they have the individual in custody.

Better to just not think about the new executive order, as we have terrorists to fear and troops to fund and civil wars to enter so our troops can be the common target for all sides.

[seemslikeadream]

48. DID YOU SEE THIS IN MY POST?

WHITE HOUSE NEWS

[hack89]

50. Now tell me why it is unique and different from past policies. nt

[seemslikeadream]

53. You tell me, that's your job not mine

[hack89]

57. OK - there is nothing unique about Bush's plan

it is in line with all previous Presidents.

Glad we resolved that issue.

[seemslikeadream]

61. I would just love to know where in the hell you saw MY interpretation of those plans

[hack89]

63. "Question this" would seem to imply something out of the ordinary

Perhaps I misunderstood - why should I question a national continuity plan when I have lived under one for my entire life with no problems? What's the big deal that needs to be questioned?

[seemslikeadream]

Didn't you hear 9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING?

[hack89]

65. But you are unable to show me the changes - got it. nt

[seemslikeadream]

66. TORTURE WIRETAPPING JUSTICE DEPT. WARS TERRORIST LISTS

HABEAS CORPUS



AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON.........


WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

[hack89]

67. I was talking about the continuity plan,

besides, in less then a year it will all be over.

[seemslikeadream]

69. in less then a year it will all be over.

No war in Iraq?


No war in Afghanistan?

No financial crises?

All of geogie's mess ups will be miraculously healed


THANK GOD

[hack89]

71. May be not all at once

but is it unreasonable to expect that a Democrat will govern differently then Bush?

[seemslikeadream]

72. #011 Presidential Directive For Dictatorial Power in Continuity of Government

http://www.projectcensored.org/articles/story/nominations-for-march-2008/
Researched by Dan Bluthardt and Bill Gibbons

A New National Security Presidential Directive gives the President dictatorial powers when dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.” Under the plan Bush entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive branch and he gives himself the responsibility for ensuring “continuity of constitutional government.” National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51’ and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20” defines a “catastrophic emergency” in vague terms, which could include an event like a 911 attack or an earthquake in California, for the takeover of government by the Executive. The White House literally has given itself dictatorial power over the government, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers. The document hollowly emphasizes the need to ensure the Constitution, yet in clear breach of the constitution assurance of checks and balances, says the President shall lead all activities of the Federal government. The secretary of Homeland Security is also placed in charge of domestic “security.” This directive has been given no scrutiny by Congress and very little by the press.

“Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of the Constitutional Government in Emergency” Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive, 5/18/2007
http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx051807.html

[hack89]

73. So how does it differ from previous plans?

Did Bush have the same powers under Clinton's plan?

[seemslikeadream]

74. if he did why would he change it?

[hack89]

77. When you tell me the differences then we will know, won't we? nt

[seemslikeadream]

75. New documents ensure Dubya Will Rule America, Should Calamity Strike. Free Balloons!

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/30/1533/

Bush Declares Self ‘Mega Decider’
New documents ensure Dubya Will Rule America, Should Calamity Strike. Free Balloons!

by Mark Morford
.....


But now, Shrub has seen fit to dust the thing off and make a few, uh, “revisions,” most notably the one that appears to shift the decision-making process away from Homeland Security (which was then to disperse responsibility to various agencies and emergency services), straight to the Oval Office itself because, hey, who better to decide who gets to do what to whom when the s– hits the fan than the most secretive, warmongering, never-saw-an-illegal-power-grab-it-didn’t-like administration in American history? Gives you that warm, fuzzy, well-protected feeling all over, doesn’t it? Like a rash? In your spleen?

Even more heartwarming, “catastrophe,” in the vague, nearly useless language of these documents, could mean, why, just about anything at all. Hurricane? Flood? Low polling numbers for Giuliani? A bad tattoo of Alberto Gonzales’ smirky face on Jenna Bush’s sacrum? You bet! Because who gets to decide what constitutes a “catastrophe”? Why, Shrub himself, that’s who. What’s more, the event doesn’t even have to occur in America (see “regardless of location”). Such a perceived “disruption” can happen anywhere in the world and with a press of the shiny red button next to his bed, Bush kicks the Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG) into gear. Neat!


....

Let us now be serious for a moment. Let us hold back the sarcasm and step back and breathe a sigh of relief because I’m sure Dubya’s changes to NSPD 51 mean a whole lotta nothing. I’m sure it’s just another standard — albeit a bit weird — governmental procedural, boring and forgettable and just one of thousands of such indecipherable, hazily unconstitutional legal quirkballs in the Pentagon’s creaky file cabinets, and Dubya’s recent changes are just an honest tweak to what really amounts to a rather ridiculous, fantastical document in the first place. Yes, surely it’s just a bunch of silly leftist paranoia to think that something dark and nasty could result from such a move.

After all, Shrub only has a year and a half left in office. Plus, his power has been severely truncated by the Dems. Why would he care to try for such a thuggish, cagey power grab now? What would be the point? Except, you know, to savagely tilt the next election and to further the new ‘n’ brutal neocon agenda of perpetual war and as a desperate, last-gasp move to prove he actually has the cojones to do something so appalling, so perfectly megalomaniacal, it’s sure to rescue his rotten legacy from history’s compost pile? I mean, besides that.

[Ghost in the Machine]

93. Maybe because Bush's policy revoked some of Clinton's??

:shrug:

From Bush's Directive 51

"(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked."


PDD 67

"Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government - PDD 67
PDD 67, issued by President Clinton in October of 1998, directs all levels of government to plan for and be able to continue minimum operations in any potential national security situation. It assigns specific, essential functions to federal agencies based on their existing statutory authorities and capabilities. Each agency must publish a Continuity of Operations Plan; support the program by maintaining the necessary planning and budgeting processes; and ensure their ability to respond during a national emergency through training, testing, and evaluation.

In addition to PDD-67, the following documents contain Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) requirements:

Federal Preparedness Circular 60, Continuity of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government at the Headquarters Level during National Security Emergencies, provides guidance on maintaining continuity in Executive Branch and the federal government's essential civil functions during national security emergencies.
Federal Preparedness Circular 65, Federal Executive Branch Continuity of Operations (COOP), provides guidance for agencies as they plan for continuing essential functions when emergencies disrupt normal operations.

EPA Order 2030.1, Continuity of Operations Plan Policy, establishes a uniform policy for developing and implementing COOPs within the Agency. It also ensures that Agency's internal organizations are able to continue essential operations during man-made, natural, technological, and national security emergencies."
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/presidentialdirectives.html


Bush will do away with

Enduring Constitutional Government

and declare himself dictator. How hard is it to understand??

[seemslikeadream]

42. You brought up Clinton and Carter SHOW ME THEIR POLICIES

OOOPS!

[hack89]

46. Start here

Did you know that Carter created FEMA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

[seemslikeadream]

43. If there is no difference between Clinton/Carter and Bush WHY

did he need those changes?


DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 - DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Posted by seemslikeadream on Fri May-02-08 10:56 AM

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive



White House News


NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH
Signature lines are currently

[hack89]

45. You think it is significant yet can't tell me how - what a surprise.

start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan

[seemslikeadream]

51. No you are the one making the claims the onus is on YOU to prove what YOU are saying

[hack89]

59. So your OP makes no claim? OK. nt

[seemslikeadream]

62. Just information sweetie

I don't tell people what they should think, I let others do that job, there's so many here ya'll don't need my help.

[hack89]

64. OK - if you say so. nt

[seemslikeadream]

68. setting aside any paranoid fantasies, FROM THAT CT SITE SLATE

http://www.slate.com/id/2176185

If you ask me, setting aside any paranoid fantasies, it is clear on the most basic level—read it yourself—that NSPD-51 is the creation of irresponsible incompetents, bulls in the china shop of our constitutional framework. It is a recipe for disaster. For a catastrophe of governance that would match whatever physical catastrophe it followed and threaten the re-establishment of constitutional democracy. It would make the partisan warfare over the 2000 election in Florida seem like child's play. We might recover from a disaster but we might never recover from the "continuity coordination" that followed, "coordination" that could forever undermine any faith in the actual continuity of constitutional liberty in America since it would put it at the mercy of any president who wants to "coordinate continuity" rather than govern legally.

I think it's urgent that we bring these questions out of the shadows of phony comity. I'd urge readers to call or e-mail their members of Congress and senators now. Call for an emergency joint congressional hearing to end this farce, give us some transparency about what our government will do if we suffer another 9/11. Let all branches of government participate in the attempt to reach some consensus on rational and effective continuity planning. Something more specific and sophisticated than the clumsy but dangerously Orwellian "Continuity Coordination Committee."

[LanternWaste]

133. I imagine Prof. Einstein was including his own

""The Important Thing is, Not to Stop Questioning" – Albert Einstein"

I imagine Prof. Einstein was including his own theorems and postulates in his list of things to be questioned. Would that we all took heed of that and questioned our own ideas before we advertise them as fact...

But then again, I'm merely an Australopithecus-- and not a very good one at that.

[Perry Logan]

10. Why would international bankers fund a plot to close down Wall Street?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CJCRANE]

22. IMO this isn't a "rant".

They seem like perfectly reasonable questions to me.

The master of the "rant" in the old days of DU was MoPaul.

[rschop]

27. In answer to: "What really happened on 9/11?

In answer to:

"What really happened on 9/11? If the chairmen of the commission now admit they were lied to and didn’t get to the bottom of things, and many of the staff wanted to indict witnesses for perjury, why doesn’t anyone in Congress or the media want to know what the 9/11 Commission didn’t learn? How many coincidences can there be before people are justified in getting suspicious?"

What happened on 9/11 is that powerful groups inside of the government, groups located inside of the CIA and at FBI Headquarters, and perhaps even inside of the administration deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

The proof for this is found from a careful study of the four official government investigations of 9/11, combined with the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, in the July 10-17, 2006 issue of the New Yorker, along with information that came out of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.

By combining this information and then separating fact from fiction the author of a new book, "Prior Knowledge of 9/11", found it was ultimately possible to put together in almost every detail the complete story of what actually happened prior to 9/11 allowed these attacks to succeed. It was also possible to see how the 9/11 Commission report, and even the FBI Inspector General's and CIA IG reports had been deliberately obfuscated to hide the culpability of the CIA and FBI HQ agents in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place. (see www.eventson911.com)

In spite of the heroic efforts of the 9/11 widows to get the US government to hold an official investigation into the events prior to the attacks on 9/11, an effort that resulted in the 9/11 Commission, the real job of the 9/11 Commission turned out to be obfuscating the truth to hide criminal actions from the American people at both the CIA and at FBI HQ that had taken place, and which had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

The truth is that the CIA and groups at the FBI Headquarters that they had subjugated, the FBI ITOS unit and the office of the FBI Director, had deliberately hidden information and even criminally obstructed FBI criminal investigations which ultimately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder 3000 people on 9/11. This was no accident. This was not that they were just going to let it happen. These groups did everything they could to ensure that the al Qaeda terrorists were left unmolested to carrying out the attacks on 9/11, even going so far as to actually sabotage FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US.

The CIA knew the names of several of the terrorists who were to take part in this attack for 21 months, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi, they even had photographs of them from surveillance of an al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 5-8, 2000. They had even photographed at this same meeting Khallad Bin Attash, later found to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing who had recruited and trained several of the terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11. Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi were all on flight AA 77 that hit the Pentagon.

The CIA knew they were all long time al Qaeda terrorists, knew several weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11 that they were inside of the US, and what is the most horrific, even ultimately knew several weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11 that they were going to take part in a huge attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

And yet they not only hid this information from the FBI criminal investigation teams that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 they even deliberately sabotaged any chance FBI criminal investigating teams had to investigate and search for Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.

What is so horrific, when the CIA knew they were sabotaging any chance the FBI Cole bombing FBI investigators would have to find Mihdhar in time and prevent these attack on 9/11, they knew that the ultimate result would be that thousands of Americans would perish in the huge attack the CIA was already aware of. They did this by hiding the information that Khallad Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing had been photographed at Kuala Lumpur with Mihdhar and Hazmi, and by working with FBI HQ agents to insure that the investigation and search for Mihdhar was opened as an intelligence investigation only with no priority and that any investigation by FBI criminal agents was completely shut down. They continued to hide the photograph of Khallad Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur from FBI investigators until after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place.

They knew by doing this, it would allow the FBI HQ agents that they had been working with to shut down any effective investigation of Mihdhar by the FBI. To summarize this information:

On August 28, 2001 FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi told FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, lead US FBI agent on the Cole bombing that he and his team would not be allowed to take part in the investigation and search for Mihdhar. But Corsi knew at that time she told Bongardt this, that the CIA already had a photograph of Khallad Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur at the al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 where the Cole bombing had been planned and even knew the CIA had been hiding this photograph from the FBI. She knew that this photograph directly connected Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing, and knew this meant the investigation of Mihdhar should have gone to the Cole investigators. Yet she kept this information completely secret from Steve and his team. Steve and his team were not even told that the CIA and Corsi had this photograph until after the events on 9/11 had taken place.


Unaware of this photograph, FBI Agent Bongardt had no way to connect Mihdhar and Hazmi to the Cole bombing and even though he found out on August 28, 2001 that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and knew they were here only in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack, he could do absolutely nothing to prevent Corsi and FBI Headquarters from blocking any chance that he and his team would have to search for Mihdhar. When Corsi told him on August 28, 2001, that he had to destroy all of the information he had on Mihdhar Bongardt said:

"Why do you think they are here, do you think they are going to FUCKING Disney Land?"

It is clear that when FBI Headquarters Agent Corsi told Steve he had to destroy the information he had on Mihdhar, and that he would not be allowed to take part in the search for Mihdhar, Bongardt already knew full well that Mihdhar was inside of the US only in order to take part in a huge al Qaeda attack, but he could do nothing to prevent Corsi and FBI HQ from taking this critical investigation away from him and his team.

Corsi and the people at the CIA she had been working with on an EC to start the search for Mihdhar, Tom Wilshire, former deputy chief of the Bin Laden unit, did not even turn the photo of Khallad over to the FBI NY office until August 30, 2001, two days after Corsi had taken the investigation of Mihdhar away from Steve and his team, and this investigation had been assigned to a single FBI intelligence agent with no prior experience in intelligence investigations. Bongardt was told by Corsi that if one piece of paper ever surfaced at the FBI with his name and the name Khalid al-Mihdhar, his career was over at the FBI.

But Tom Wilshire and the CIA had previously blocked information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting from going to the FBI on at least 12 separate occasions now summarized in a new book "Prior Knowledge of 9/11". To summarize a few of these occasions:

January 5, 2000 Tom Wilshire blocks a cable from going to the FBI, written by FBI Agent Doug Miller, who was an FBI IOS Agent working at the CIA Bin Laden unit. This cable had information on Khalid al-Mihdhar, his passport photo, his multi-entry visa, the fact he was attending the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur where the bombing of the USS Cole was being planned. When asked by FBI IG investigators after 9/11, Wilshire says he had no recollection of this cable, why it had been blocked, in spite of his clear identification right on the cable, or why his CIA desk officer sent out another cable right after the Miller cable had been blocked that said this information had been sent to the FBI.

March 5, 2000, Wilshire reads, along with 50-60 other people at the CIA, a cable that says Nawaf al-Hazmi an al Qaeda terrorist that had attended the Kuala Lumpur meetings, has entered the US. Hazmi had entered the US with Mihdhar, to find a flight school and start flight training. This information is not given to the FBI until it is too late and Hazmi was not watch listed at this time. At the 9/11 Commission hearings on April 14, 2004, in response to a direct question, what was done with the cable that came into the CIA HQ that said Hazmi had entered the US in January 15, 2000, Tenet said "no one read this cable".

November 2000, FBI Agent Ali Soufan, who was assigned lead FBI investigator on the Cole bombing by John O'Neill, sent a request to the CIA Yemen station asking for any information that the CIA has on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 and any information on Khallad Bin Attash, now known to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing. He is told there is no information even though the Yemen station already knows about this meeting and even knows that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting.

In December 2000, the CIA Yemen station sent the photo of Khallad Bin Attash attached to Soufan's request to the Joint FBI/CIA source, who identified Khallad immediately as a high level al Qaeda terrorist. The CIA Yemen station then sent this photo to the CIA Bin Laden unit and requested the photos of Khallad and Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur so these could be shown to the FBI/CIA Joint source. These were shown to the FBI/CIA Joint source in January 2001, and Khallad identified in the Kuala Lumpur photos. While the CIA Bin Laden unit, the Yemen station and even the CIA handler for the FBI/CIA Joint source at this point all knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Khallad bin Attash planning the Cole bombing, this information is kept completely secret from the FBI and from FBI Agent Ali Soufan, in spite of his direct request to the CIA Yemen station, in a wide ranging criminal conspiracy at the CIA. They were all aware at this time by not giving this information to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing they were committing criminal obstruction of an on going FBI investigation, a major felony!

However, the 9/11 Commission staff statement Number 10, released on April 13, 2004 says that: "In December <2000>, based on some analysis of information associated with Khalid al-Mihdhar the CIA Bin Laden station speculated that Khallad and Khalid al-Mihdhar might be one and the same. So the CIA asked that a Kuala Lumpur surveillance photo of Mihdhar be shown to the joint source who had already identified an official photo of Khallad."

But the passport photo of Khallad that Soufan sent to the Yemen station had already been sent to the Bin Laden unit at the same time the CIA Yemen station had asked for the photos of Khallad and Mihdhar. And the Bin Laden unit had already positively identified Mihdhar at Kuala Lumpur, from his passport photo the CIA had obtained when he had passed through Dubai on his way to Kuala Lumpur from Sanna, Yemen.

So there was no possible way that the CIA Bin Laden unit could ever have though Khallad and Mihdhar were one and same person in December 2000. This statement in this 9/11 Commission staff statement that the CIA thought they were the one and the same appears to have been added only in order to justify why the photos from Kuala Lumpur were shown to the Joint source. Since the information that the photo of Khallad had been shown to the CIA/FBI Joint source, and Khallad had been identified at the Kuala Lumpur planning meeting was eventually going to come out, this statement was added to the staff report to prove to the American people that the CIA had not deliberately committed criminal actions by hiding this identification of Khallad from the Kuala Lumpur photos from the FBI and Ali Soufan. Just this statement alone renders the entire 9/11 Commission investigation and report a total and complete fraud.

When the CIA handler for the FBI/CIA Joint source did not tell Soufan or the FBI that Khallad had been identified in the Kuala Lumpur photos, the 9/11 Commission statement goes on to say:

"This is an example of how day-to-day gaps in information sharing can emerge even in a situation of good will on all sides."

But they clearly leave out the fact that both the Yemen CIA station and the Bin Laden unit knew Khallad had been identified from the Kuala Lumpur photo, and they also did not tell the FBI or Soufan of this identification. The Yemen station had been directly requested this information by FBI Agent Soufan himself. This is yet another example of how the 9/11 Commission report is a total fraud. Today with much new information available it is easy to see how this fraud is now exposed as an attempt by the 9/11 Commission to hide CIA culpability in obstructing the criminal investigation in the Cole bombing, an investigation that had it not been deliberately obstructed could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

November 2000, after being told the Yemen station has none of the information Soufan is looking for, Soufan sends this same request to FBI Director Louis Freeh asking Freeh to request this information from CIA Director Tenet. Freeh tells Soufan that the CIA has no information on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur or on Khallad Bin Attash. But Freeh himself knew about this meeting and even knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at that meeting, this fact is described right on page 248 of the FBI IG report and again on page 181 of the 9/11 Commission report!

The FBI IG report says:

In the midst of the Millennium period concerns in late 1999, the NSA analyzed communications associated with a suspected terrorist facility in the Middle East linked to Al Qaeda activities directed against U.S. interests. The communications indicated that several members of an "operational cadre" were planning to travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in early January 2000. Analysis of the communications revealed that persons named Nawaf, Khalid and Salem were involved. At the FBI, this information appeared in the daily threat update to the Director on January 4, 2000.

The 9/11 Commission report says; the Counter terrorism center had briefed the CIA leadership on the gathering in Kuala Lumpur and the information had been passed on ... to the Director Freeh and others at the FBI...

So it is clear that Freeh knew about the meeting in Kuala Lumpur at the very time of Soufan's request in November 2000 and then had criminally obstructed his own FBI investigation of the Cole bombing, an investigation that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

April 2001, FBI Agent Ali Soufan, lead FBI investigator on the Cole bombing, sends a request to CIA HQ asking for any information that the CIA has on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 and on Khallad Bin Attash, now known to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing. By carefully analyzing the FBI IG report, it is now clear that both Tom Wilshire and Clark Shannon had obtained copies of this request in mid-May 2001, although this information has been kept as one of the most closely guarded secrets at the CIA.

Instead of answering this request and providing the information Soufan has requested, Wilshire enlists Clark Shannon to ask FBI HQ IOS Agent Dina Corsi to set up a meeting in New York City at the NY FBI field office with the Cole investigators for June 11, 2001, they very same people who worked for Soufan, and show them the three photos of Mihdhar Wilshire had obtained from the CIA. At that meeting after Corsi presented these three photos, CIA officer Clark Shannon asked Bongardt and the other Cole investigators if they recognized anyone in any of these photos. Since one photo showed only Mihdhar and Hazmi in Malaysia, it is clear that this meeting had been set up by the CIA only to see if the Cole investigators had uncovered information on Mihdhar and Hazmi in their search for Khallad, the very information that the CIA had been keeping secret since January 5, 2000. This is the information that these two al Qaeda terrorists had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Khallad Bin Attash planning the Cole bombing. This meeting was in fact a CIA sting on the FBI set up to find out what the FBI Cole investigators knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi and the meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

July 5, 2001 Wilshire sends email back to the CIA and his CTC mangers that says he is sure that people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi, are all connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack, warnings that the CIA has been receiving since April 2001.

July 13, 2001, just 3 days after Tenet and Black tell Rice and Clarke a huge al Qaeda attack will take place inside of the US that will kill thousands of Americans, Wilshire asks his CTC managers via email, for permission to send this information to the FBI. He is never given this permission.

July 20, 2001, Tenet and Black tell Rumsfeld and Ashcroft the same information that a huge al Qaeda attack will take place inside of the US that will kill thousands of Americans. Ashcroft is so terrified of being killed in a aircraft hijacking, he immediately quits flying on commercial aircraft for fear of being on a aircraft hijacked by al Qaeda terrorists. Since Ashcroft is suppose to be the head of the FBI it is strange he does never tells the FBI what the CIA knows.

July 23, 2001 Wilshire again sends a email request to his CTC mangers asking what had happened to his July 13 request to transfer information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI and further says he is sure Mihdhar, and by association, Hazmi, will be found at the point of the next big al Qaeda attack. He again is not given permission.

At the CIA, if you are not given permission from doing something, everyone understood this meant you were forbidden from doing this, particularly if you were not responded to twice for the exact same request.

The July and July 13 emails in their exact form are found in both the evidence item number 939 entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006, and in the FBI IG report, but the July 23 email is missing from the FBI IG report, so someone had carefully stripped this horrific email out the FBI IG report prior to it being released to the public. This is yet another example of where even the FBI IG report had been sabotaged to hide the fact that the CIA knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi and even Hazmi's brother Salem al-Hamzi were going to take part in the huge al Qaeda attack everyone at the CIA and the administration knew about in the summer of 2001.

August 22, 2001, Wilshire is told by FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie, a FBI IOS agent working at the CIA Bin Laden unit, that Mihdhar and Hazmi are now both inside of the US. While, he is clearly aware that they will take part in a huge al Qaeda attack that will kill thousands of Americans, Wilshire continues hide this information from the FBI, and also continues to hide the photo of Khallad Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur from the FBI knowing this will allow FBI agents at FBI HQ to block any investigation of Mihdhar and will prevent the FBI criminal investigators from stopping these attacks. He clearly knows that as a result, thousands on Americans will perish from his and CIA actions.

Wilshire is apparently concerned that if the photo of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur is sent to the FBI at the same time the photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi are, and this photo ends up going to the Cole investigators and Steve Bongardt, Bongardt will know immediately that the CIA had criminally obstructed the investigation of the Cole bombing on numerous occasions.

When Gillespie forces the CIA Bin Laden unit to issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 23, 2001, the entire CIA Bin Laden unit and even the entire CIA hierarchy knew these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US for no other reason than to take part in the huge al Qaeda attack the CIA was aware of. Yet this information is deliberately kept secret by all of these people, from the FBI. Although we are told in the CIA IG report that 50-60 people at the CIA are now aware of this information, no one raises any alarm and no alarm is ever given to anyone at the FBI about the huge attack inside of the US that is just about to take place.

August 24, 2001, almost beyond belief, Wilshire continues email contact with Maltbie and Frasca, the two FBI managers at the FBI RFU who were sabotaging FBI Agent Harry Samit's investigation of Moussaoui by denying him even the chance to ask permission for a search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions. This warrant when granted lead the FBI to finding the connections between the terrorists in just a few days. So even before August 24, Wilshire, knows Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US in order to take part in a huge al Qaeda attack and also knows Moussaoui has been arrested by the FBI and is thought to be an al Qaeda terrorists who is learning how to fly a 747 in order to take part in a an aircraft hijacking that will fly this plane into the World Trade Center Towers.

Both the FBI RFU unit with Maltbie and Frasca and the FBI Bin Laden unit with Dina Corsi reported to the Michael Rolince, the head of the FBI ITOS unit! Tom Wilshire had been moved over from the CIA to be liaison to Rolince in mid-May 2001 right after the CIA had received the request from Soufan for the information the CIA had on a meeting in Kuala Lumpur and Bin Attash. His job as liaison to Rolince is to provide CIA information to the FBI to be exploited in FBI investigations. No one on the 9/11 Commission even explains why when Wilshire's job as liaison to Michael Rolince and the FBI is to give CIA information to the FBI to be exploited in FBI criminal investigations, he does just the opposite and makes sure CIA information is kept away from FBI investigations!

All of the people at FBI HQ who were sabotaging the FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US worked at this group, the ITOS unit of the FBI. Since Wilshire had been moved over in mid-May 2001 to be liaison to this group from the CIA and he had been denied permission twice to transfer the information from the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI it is obvious his role at the FBI was first to find if the FBI criminal investigators knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi, then block any CIA information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting from going to the FBI criminal investigators and finally have the RFU and Bin Laden units at the FBI ITOS unit shut down using any means possible any investigations on any al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US.

It looks like that all of the people killed on 9/11 were probably completely doomed from the very day in mid-May 2001 that Wilshire was moved over to be liaison to the FBI ITOS section by Tenet and Black, with the concurrence of Rolince and Freeh. Toward the later part of August it is now clear when Mihdhar and Hazmi were found to be inside of the US, and the CIA knew they were going to take part in this huge al Qaeda attack, and Moussaoui was arrested by the FBI Wilshire then did everything he could in addition to spying on these investigations to make sure all of these criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US were shut down completely.

What hope was there for any of these people killed ion 9/11 when the Director of the CIA, the head of the CTC section of the CIA, the entire Bin Laden unit at the CIA, several CIA stations including Yemen, Thailand and Malaysia and even the FBI director, the head of the FBI ITOS, the liaison to the FBI ITOS, the FBI Bin Laden unit and the FBI RFU unit were all involved in hiding critical information from the FBI field criminal investigators or blocking critical investigations of al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US.

What hope did they have when almost everyone of importance in the current administration, including Rice, Clarke, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and even the President, knew about this attack, knew it would kill thousands of Americans, and then did absolutely nothing in any way to prevent this huge attack from taking place. No one even bothered to alert the FBI, or step in to block the CIA and FBI HQ from shutting down these investigations of known al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US.

What is the biggest horror story of all is that all of this is information is now in the public domain although it took the author several years to pull it all together in this book.

The big question is why has the main stream media not found and then printed this very same information, and right on their front page? Are they terrified of reprisals from the current administration.

Do they feel that the deaths on 3000 people on 9/11 is just old news and in the news business old news is no news, so who cares that all of these people were killed.

Perhaps they are too scared to print this story, out of fear of reprisals from the current administration.

Perhaps they feel it was in fact their fault that all of these people were killed on 9/11. After all when Ashcroft quit flying commercial aircraft after being told on July 20, 2001 by Tenet and Black, that al Qaeda was planning a huge attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans, and then he released a press statement that said this was due to a unspecified threat from the FBI, and it was even reported on CBS evening news on July 26, 2001, no other news organization even bothered to pick up on this, and asked if the AJ is no longer going to fly on commercial aircraft because it was so dangerous maybe it is unsafe for the average American to fly on commercial aircraft. No one from the msm bothered to ask what was this FBI threat that was so horrific the AJ had completely modified his travel arrangements for the rest of his term in office.

When the New York times found out around the July 4, 2001 time frame that a huge attack was aimed right at the US, they did not put this in their paper due to the fact they felt they did not have enough to make it into a front page story. It was more important to them to have a story for their front page than it was to save the lives of thousands of their own fellow New York City citizens.

So in the end, what can you do even if you know the whole story in every detail? You can take this blog and send it everywhere, you can get the book, take out excerpts and add these to blogs everywhere, but you can do virtually nothing else. It is now clear that there will never be another 9/11 investigation, the powers that be will never allow it. If the government spent a huge effort to prove top the American people that the FBI HQ and CIA and even people in the current administration were not involved in deliberately allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place, where is it in their interest to go back and have an investigation that will undoubtedly prove just the opposite!

[CJCRANE]

28. Your book looks very interesting.

I assume you've been in touch with 911Blogger.com.

That would be a good place to promote it and share information.

[rschop]

36. Re: Your book looks very interesting.

CJCRANE, thanks very much for your suggestion, I have spent a lot of timing writing and rewriting this book and have not had much time yet to do much in the way of promoting it other then post information on to a few blogs, but I will look at 911Blogger.com and see if their rules allow this.

Again thanks for your suggestion.

[Flatulo]

29. If I may offer a suggestion...

This is a very complex web of people, time and events. People may not bother to follow the whole chronology because it is so complicated. What would help clarify the whole story would be some kind of graphical representation.

I'm thinking of something like a PERT chart, if you've seen them. Time is on the horizontal axis and events are shown as ballons intersecting the time axis, with the added dimension of connecting the balloons to each other if they are related or dependant events.

This is probably a lot of work.

[rschop]

34. Re: If I may offer a suggestion...

Flatulo, thank you very much for your insightful suggestion.

That had been suggested before and is now in the book as a complete graphical time line with much of the information that was in the summary on this blog, along with the exact document name, the exact page number and in many cases along the exact sentences from each document that are relevant to each point in the time line. The book adds into all of this information the analysis that was required to stitch it all back together into one complete comprehensive story of what actually happened prior to 9/11.

Here is one example of this analysis taken right out of the book "Prior Knowledge of 9/11", pages 469-473:

According to the FBI IG report, around mid-May 2001 the following activity took place at the CIA:


FBI IG Report page 284:

“In addition to reviewing the East Asia travel of several bin Laden operatives in January 2000, John (aka Tom Wilshire) also began looking in CIA records for the Kuala Lumpur photographs. John obtained three of them. John told the OIG that he had not read the cable stating that the joint source had identified Khallad in the photographs, but he was aware that an identification of Khallad in the photographs had been made. At the end of his e-mail to Peter (aka Clark Shannon), John stated that he had obtained three surveillance photographs of al-Mihdhar in Malaysia, but he did not see "Khallad" in any of the photographs, and he believed he was "missing something" or "someone saw something that wasn't there." John also questioned whether there was a cable somewhere that documented the identification of Khallad."

Analysis:

When Wilshire was looking to find Khallad in the photos of Mihdhar, how would Tom Wilshire, aka John, have known what Khallad looked like in order to identify him? Where did Wilshire get the photo of Khallad he was using to identify Khallad?

Since Wilshire had not located the CIA cable that had identified Khallad and al-Mihdhar together at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, and the only other photo of Khallad at the CIA was the passport photo Soufan had attached to his April request, the only possible way he knew what Khallad looked like was from the passport photo Ali Soufan sent with his April request. If Wilshire had the photograph of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur, the photo the CIA gave the FBI in August 30, 2001, he would have known immediately that Khallad was not in the same photograph as Mihdhar but was in fact in an entirely different photograph.

Since there were only two photographs of Khallad at the CIA, the Kuala Lumpur photo and the photo from Ali Soufan’s request, Wilshire must have had the photo from Soufan’s request.

As I was trying to square the information in the account of Ali Soufan with the FBI IG report, it was becoming clear for the first time that while the CIA never officially responded to Ali’s April, 2001 request, (for information the CIA had on Khallad Bin Attash or a al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur) Wilshire must have had Ali’s request. He used the passport photo that was sent with this request to see if Khallad was in any of the photographs with al-Mihdhar, and quickly found out he was not.

My first reaction to the fact Tom Wilshire, former Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden Unit had Ali’s request was;

OH MY GOD!

From page 283-284 FBI IG report:

"Peter, aka CIA Officer Clark Shannon, told the OIG that he recalled talking to FBI IOSs, including Donna,(FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi) about mapping the telephone number information based on information provided by al-Quso. But he said that he did not recall discussions with Donna about the Kuala Lumpur photographs or the Khallad identification."

So we now know where Corsi obtained the telephone number Quso had called in Malaysia. She was given this number by Clark Shannon who could only have obtained this number from Ali Soufan’s request for information. The fact that Fahad al Quso had called this number appeared nowhere else except in Ali Soufan’s request to the CIA HQ.

As I was for the first time placing this information together, my reaction was again another;

OH MY GOD!

The FBI Cole investigators clearly were never made aware of this, even when they were all sitting together with the CIA officers including Clark Shannon, in a meeting in New York City on June 11, 2001.

They were unaware that these CIA officers had Ali’s request at the time of the June 11, 2001 meeting, and unaware that this request had triggered the CIA to call this meeting.

Had the Cole investigators been made aware of this information that had been kept secret by the CIA, perhaps in the most closely guarded secret at the CIA, they would have known that the people in the photographs were directly connected to the planning of the Cole bombing and their investigation and would have demanded that the CIA turn over all of the information they had on these people. (NOTE: One photo shown to the FBI Cole investigators who worked directly for FBI Agent Ali Soufan, only had images of Mihdhar and Hazmi in it.) They would have demanded all of the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi, which would have allowed them to prevent the attacks on 9/11.

CIA sting operation on the FBI Cole Investigators


The CIA, Wilshire, Shannon and Corsi never replied to Ali’s request. They did not give him the information they had on either this telephone number, or any of the information the CIA had on Khallad. Instead, Corsi, at the request of Clark Shannon, did something, which at first seems almost incomprehensible. She scheduled a meeting, at the behest of Clark Shannon and Tom Wilshire, with the very Cole investigators who worked for Ali, for June 11, 2001, in New York, indicating to them that this meeting was being set up “to share” with them new information the CIA and FBI Headquarters had on the Cole investigation.

When the meeting took place, CIA Supervisor Clark Shannon asked if the Cole investigators could identify anyone in the three photos Corsi had placed in front of them, photographs Wilshire had obtained from the CIA that had the image of Mihdhar in them.

One photo had al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi and no one else. But, the CIA knew what both of these terrorists look like.
So it is clear when the CIA supervisor Shannon made this request, he and the CIA only wanted to know if the Cole investigators could identify either al-Mihdhar or al-Hazmi in these photos.

It now clear that the CIA only wanted to know if the FBI Cole investigators had uncovered the information that the CIA had kept secret about these two terrorists for the past 19 months. This was the information on the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, and the fact that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi had been seen together with Khallad at this meeting.

NOTE all of this information had been also hidden and obfuscated by the 9/11 Commission in their investigation of the events of 9/11. It is impossible to believe that they had not also found this very same information!

[noise]

40. What explains the conduct of Alec Station and FBI ITOS agents?

Are US intelligence agencies corrupt to the point of facilitating terrorist attacks?

Wouldn't these people be concerned with charges of treason?

How can we not have a good answer to explain their conduct after all this time?

[rschop]

76. RE: What explains the conduct of Alec Station and the ITOS..

Are US intelligence agencies corrupt to the point of facilitating terrorist attacks?

That is the conclusion based on all of the evidence that came out of the four official investigations of 9/11 when this information was combined with the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, lead investigator on the Cole bombing, and low listed in "Prior Knowledge of 9/11". This information is all in plain sight right in these investigation reports for all to see.

The big question is why has MSN media not pointed this information out in the news print or broadcast media. The MSN media have kept this all under wraps. This basically points out the MSN media are just as corrupt if not more corrupt than the intelligence agencies.

Wouldn't these people be concerned with charges of treason?

No, the CIA IG report says no one at that CIA will face any disciplinary hearings at the CIA much less criminal trials. The FBI will never investigate anyone at the CIA, for any FBI agent that would instant career death. Prior CIA Director Porter Goss said these people are America's finest.

How can we not have a good answer to explain their conduct after all this time?

The four official investigations of 9/11 all had separate issues and even agendas.

The Joint inquiry of the House and Senate could not get critical information from the FBI, CIA or the White House and it was clear these agencies were deliberately obstructing this investigation but the House and Senate could do nothing. Almost every one knew the heads of these agencies were lying in public hearing but again they could do nothing.

The 9/11 Commission was set up only to prove to the American people the CIA, FBI HQ and the current administration, which is known for it's superlative honesty and truthfulness did not deliberately allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11. It is probably the most corrupt official government investigation in the history of the US

Again and again the 9/11 Commissioners knew the people they had testify in public hearings were lying and they did nothing to correct the record. The people testifying knew they were lying, the Commissioners also knew they were lying, most of the American people who watched the public hearings knew they were lying, and even the people giving the testimony knew all of these other people watching these hearings knew they were lying.

When Tim Roemer asked Tenet why if he knew in August that a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans why he did not tell the President in August. Roemer asked if all of these Americans were just about to be killed in this horrific attack would it not be important for Tenet to tell the President so the President could head off this huge attack and prevent the deaths of all of these people.

Tenet said the President was in Crawford and he was in Washington and that is why he did not tell the President. (I guess this all makes sense to someone but what is so horrific the MSN media was there, I saw Michael Isakoff at these hearings, the in your face reporter for Newsweek who heard all of this incredible testimony. Why did all of these MSN media people point out this testimony just made no sense. GO FIGURE!)

Then Roemer asked why did Tenet not pick up a phone and call him so the President could get this very critical information in order to protect the American people, his main and most important function after all. Tenet said he just did not call the President, it was just as simple at that, no further explaination. Since this exchange took place over at least 20-25 questions, Tenet several times said he had not talked to the President in August, but then in a very load voice he said just to make sure he would go back and check his calendar.

Everyone including all of the people who were at the hearing that day and has lost relatives on 9/11, all of the other people in that room including myself, and all of the 9/11 Commissioners knew he was lying at that point. How would it be possible that the Director of the CIA would not know if he had or had not talked to the President in August just before that attacks on 9/11. This made no sense. But Bill Harlow cleared it all up when right after the April 14, 2004 hearings were over and the 9/11 Commission could not call Tenet back. Harlow said Tenet had been lying, that he had talked to the President, in August, in fact on several occasion and had even flown down to Crawford in August. But by this time it way too late for the Commissioners to ask him what had he told the President about all of this horrific information!

The 9/11 Commission also said they could never explain why when the CIA knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi for 21 months, even had their photographs, knew they were long time al Qaeda terrorists, knew they were inside of the US, knew a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US, the CIA could never connect these two terrorist to the this huge al Qaeda attack.

But we now have Wilshire's July emails which says the CIA had connected these two al Qaeda terrorists to this huge attack. Since the 9/11 Commission could have issued subpoenas because they had subpoena power to get these emails there is no rational explaination why they did not have this information. The 9/11 Commission clearly investigated and found a lot of information, information that later they just did not want to know.

It is clear from every prospective that the 9/11 Commission was nothing but a total fraud foisted onto the American people to prove these agencies and the current administration did not deliberately allow these attacks on 9/11 to take place and unfortunately the information that came out of this investigation when combined with other information to fill in the details deliberately left out by the 9/11 Commission proves just the opposite.

The FBI IG report was only to find fault with FBI agents and again it was a white wash. The account of FBI Agent Soufan combined with the FBI IG report says FBI Director Freeh had criminally obstructed his own FBI agents on the Cole investigation, it is right there in black and white, but Soufan has been all but stripped out of the FBI IG report.

The CIA IG report says the CIA really should have told the FBI about Mihdar and Hazmi, and lists as the number 50-60 people who could have done this but deliberately did not. It in essence says 50-60 people knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi, knew they were going to take part in this huge al Qaeada attack that would kill thousands but none of them did anything to alert the FBI. In effect it says that all of these CIA personnel deliberately allowed the al Qaead terrorists to murder 3000 people on 9/11.

But it goes on to say that basically this is simply just too bad, and even though 3000 people were killed on 9/11 no one at the CIA will be held accountable or face any disciplinary hearings over deliberately allowing these attacks to take place. This report says that the CIA is basically above the law, and the American people should just finally come to recognize this important truth.

[noise]

81. Accountability

Not only was there no accountability but some people were rewarded or promoted!

Frasca. Bowman (cash bonus). Rice (Secretary of State). Hayden (two lateral promotions). Hadley (NSA advisor). Eberhart (head of Northcom).

[Flatulo]

82. What about Tenet's Medal of Freedom?

That has to be one of the more outrageous acts of this administration.

[noise]

37. Good questions

I think Naomi Wolf is on the right track. The Bush administration is implementing a police state. 9/11 makes a lot more sense when viewed as a plan to accelerate this police state.

[Perry Logan]

78. Why can't any two Truthers agree on the theory? That's my question.

If there were really so much solid evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, the Truthers could agree on their story.

But they don't agree on any aspect of the story! They post lists of "9/11 smoking guns," but every list is different. Every Truther has a different story. I think it's because there is no evidence.

[HamdenRice]

79. Why can't brain dead Hillbots agree on the exact mechanism

by which Clinton will overturn "the math" and win the Democratic nomination thereby proving all Hillary doubters are "delusional."

When you can answer that, I'll answer your question.

But heres a hint: even scientists don't agree on the exact mechanism by which some hypotheses work until they are proven. Only in PerryLoganMaxHeadroomBizarroWorld is unanimity a precondition to the exploration of issues.

[CJCRANE]

80. There's too much evidence!

The problem is that there is so much information and complexity, that's why people focus on different things.

Imagine if there were no justice system and all crimes went un-investigated by professionals - you would end up with the same situation.

ed : sp

[Realityhack]

123. Good point

It is a complex set of interwoven events many of which are fairly technical.

The problem I see is, it's perfectly legitimate to challenge anything. But you should really have some idea what you are talking about when you do. And if you are putting forward an alternative you definitely need to know what you are talking about, and be ready to change your mind if new evidence comes forward.

What I sadly see so often is the opposite. Ignorance of the facts rather than leading to research lead directly to some bizarre theory that is never fully fleshed out, followed by absolute refusal to acknowledge any criticism never mind research the facts on a subject.

It makes finding out 'the truth' very difficult because you have to wade through so many insane ideas and questions to find the ones that are meaningful and valid.

[Perry Logan]

83. Not a Hillbot here. Normally, more evidence tends to reduce the number of hypotheses.

But the opposite has happened with 9/11. We get more theories every day, suggesting there is no real "evidence."

Instead of endlessly mocking the official version, the Truthers need to tell us what their hypothesis is. If they can't agree on their story, we owe them no investigations. The time for "just asking questions" is past.

Especially since most of the questions have been very well answered:
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

[HamdenRice]

84. Two untrue statements in one post!

Usually your drive bys just have one untruth.

You used to post over and over that anyone who thought that Hillary wouldn't be the nominee was delusional, and you still do your drive by hits in Obama threads. That qualifies you as a Hillbot.

As for evidence reducing the number of theories, do you have some evidence of that? Have you ever read a "true crime" non fiction book? Ever read about Watergate or Iran-contra? Ever watch CSI or "Law and Order"? As evidence is elicited, investigators develop more and more theories and are often led down dead ends, until the evidence for one theory become conclusive.

We are still in the "eliciting evidence" phase of investigating 9/11.

[Perry Logan]

85. Not a Hillbot. Remember the "Big Bang" vs. "Steady State" theories?

If you'll recall, physicists used to hold two competing theories about how the universe began.

They couldn't decide which theory was right, because they needed more evidence.

Then they got the evidence. The evidence supported the Big Bang Theory, so the other theory was abandoned. Game over.

See how it works? New evidence eventually knocks bad theories out of the running. But this hasn't happened with the inside job theories of 9/11. That's because there is no evidence--just a lot of people sharing fantasies.

[freedom fighter jh]

86. As others have said, you don't have to know the whole story to know the story you've been

told is false.

We may not agree totally on anything, but for the most part we (truthers) agree that the official story is full of holes.

From there, we have developed various hypotheses. There is much evidence supporting these hypotheses, but not much of the kind of evidence that can help us choose among them. Thus we need more information even while we suffer from information overload.

Yes, Perry, you're right that more information allows for a narrowing of hypotheses -- but only if it's the *right kind* of information. That would be, say, the kind of information that you might get from a valid, true, relevant investigation, say an engineering investigation that did not stop at the moment when the collapse started, or an investigation that, unlike the 911 Commission's work, did not depend on testimony elicited by waterboarding.

[Realityhack]

106. That is lightyears from what I see happening here.

Yes the 'truthers' or whatever you want to call them all claim holes in the 'official' explanations.

So do so called 'OCTers'. We know the investigations are imperfect. We know our understanding is not absolute. We know our estimations are not perfect.

Contrary to what you claim however. There is NOT much evidence supporting the various CONJECTURES made by the 'truthers' here. Many of them blatantly rediculus.

These are not carefully developed and researched hypotheses. They are at best loose conjectures with their own massive problems.
Furthermore there is plenty of evidence to decide between various 'theories'. Are you seriously thinking we can't rule out nuclear devices or no airplane involvement at all?

[HamdenRice]

87. Is a criminal or political investigation the same as a scientific investigation?

No.

They are completely different. The standards of proof are different. The epistemology is different.

We still don't know the full extent of Iran-Contra, but we know enough to be able to say with confidence that crimes were committed.

A question raised astro-physics is not an appropriate analogy to a an investigation of a political crime.

[greyl]

89. Please, teach us how criminal investigation is completely different from scientific investigation.

(Maybe you should begin by demonstrating your grasp of scientific method. If you want to impress anyone, that is)

Then, explain what the hell your last sentence is supposed to mean:

"A question raised astro-physics is not an appropriate analogy to a an investigation of a political crime."

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

91. Actually in both cases the standard applied should be the preponderence of the evidence.

And in both cases, whatever theory is currently espoused by authorities has an inherent advantage.

[Realityhack]

108. What?

That isn't the criminal standard for very good reasons, it is only the civil court standard.

As for science, multiple theories are permitted to exist.

[noise]

88. Would you rather

people have faith in the likes of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Rice? Are we to assume that all the classified evidence backs their version of 9/11?

Please keep in mind the track record of these officials. They have lied about everything. They are able to classify whatever they want based on the notion of "national security interests." DoD, CIA and the Justice Department have all been run by Bush loyalists. FBI Director Mueller was called out by Coleen Rowley for "covering the wagons" in relation to 9/11 related failures. He was in charge when Agent Bowman got a cash bonus and Agent Frasca was promoted. Poster RSchop (in this forum) has laid out the case against the two FBI ITOS units (UBLU and RFU) that conducted themselves in a bizarre manner in the lead up to 9/11. No conspiracy theory. Just their own bizarre conduct.

[Realityhack]

118. I certainly hope nobody has faith in them!

There are plenty of legitimate questions about what classified evidence might reveal.

But I don't need classified evidence to dismiss nuclear devices (for example) as plenty of unclassified evidence contradicts the theory.

[Grateful for Hope]

92. Looks like you were right, HR

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=201266


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6388383

[Grateful for Hope]

95. Kicking for HR who has probably not seen this. n/t

[HamdenRice]

96. Worst. OCTer. Ever. Gets. TOMBSTONED!

I know we are not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but that guy posted nothing but nonesense and non sequiturs, while trying to plug is truly awful cable and internet teevee show.

What a racist piece of drivel his final post was.

Good riddance.

:woohoo:

[Grateful for Hope]

102. I agree that he is racist.

You might want to visit the links in the thread I posted.

[Grateful for Hope]

114. Wasn't he one of the biggest cheerleaders here for the OCT?

Sure does make one think (especially if one reads the links in his "goodbye" thread).

[Diane_nyc]

137. The 9/11 Truth movement: What is it about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=203375&mesg_id=203618">Perry Logan wrote:

78. Why can't any two Truthers agree on the theory? That's my question.

If there were really so much solid evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, the Truthers could agree on their story.

An unstated assumption here is that the 9/11 Truth movement is primarily about inside-job theories.

It's true that many, apparently a large majority, of 9/11 Truth activists have jumped to the conclusion that "9/11 is an inside job." But its original focus, as an organized movement, was not on any particular theory, but rather on supporting the 9/11 families, led by the Jersey Girls, in their quest for an independent investigation.

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the 9/11 Commission was not as thorough as it should have been, and that its "independence" was compromised by Philip Zelikow's conflicts of interest, compounded by Hamilton and Kean's go-easy approach. So there was effectively a cover-up. We just don't know exactly what was cover-up.

Some people insist that what was covered up must be an "inside job." At the other extreme, other people insist that what was covered up couldn't possibly have been anything worse than incompetence. But there are many other possibilities in between, including not just LIHOP but also criminal negligence and garden-variety treason such as the sort of thing Sibel Edmonds talked about.

I would say that the 9/11 Truth movement has gotten derailed by various activists' overcommitment to the idea that "9/11 was an inside job!" More recently, Jon Gold has tried to bring the movement back on track with his video "9/11: Press for Truth." Although this video has some flaws, its focus is in the right place: the families' quest for answers, and the failings of the 9/11 Commission.

[Realityhack]

94. Why do you insist on using the term OCTer? n/t

[HamdenRice]

97. What's wrong with it?

It simply stands for "Official Conspiracy Theorist." Most of the OCTers have told us with endless repitition that the 9/11 Commission, the official report, got everything right and complete (even though the Chairmen no longer stand by their findings).

It's certainly a lot more polite than "troofer."

[SDuderstadt]

98. Name "most of the OCTers" who've told you the 9/11 Commission...

got everything right. I'd love to see this list and have those names respond to you. I certainly hope you're not including me in that list, as I have NEVER said that the 9/11 Commission Report got everything right and complete. In fact, I don't know of a single OCTer who claims such a thing.

[Bassman66]

99. What did it get wrong? nt.

[HamdenRice]

100. Touche!

This should be good!

[SDuderstadt]

101. Ummm, I asked you first, Hamden.....

name those of us "OCTers" who claim the 9/11 Commission got everything right

[Bassman66]

119. What did it get wrong? nt.

[SDuderstadt]

120. No way, guys....

the "truther" tactic of avoiding questions by asking questions isn't working today, especially for you, Bassman.

[Ghost in the Machine]

127. Still can't answer a simple question, huh?

Color me shocked! Shocked and *amazed*!

No. Really. I'm shocked!








Psych!

[Bassman66]

129. What did it get wrong?

I'm responding to your post which implied that there are no OCTer's who think the 9/11 CR got everything right.

So I presume that must include you, I'm just wondering what you think it got wrong, that would kind of go a little way to proving your point if you could tell us that.

Help us here, because I'm under the impression that most if not all OCTer's don't question the 9/11 CR.

[SDuderstadt]

132. If your impression is correct...

why can't you guys find examples of what you claim?

[Grateful for Hope]

103. Did you vote in my poll? n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

104. I, too, would like to know what you think the report got wrong

I will be patiently waiting...

[SDuderstadt]

113. I hope just as patiently as I am waiting for Hamden to...

name the "most of the OCTers" who claim the 9/11 Commission Report is totally correct and complete. While you are waiting for my answer, I'd invite you to search for any post I have ever made in which I claim the 9/11 Commission Report is totally correct and complete. If you'd notice, I take issue with some of the more unfounded and, at times, outrageous claims made here. I'd also to invite you to search for the number of times I have cited the 9/11 Commission Report as my source for anything (I'll save you the trouble...it's ZERO). If someone imputes that somehow means I am defending the completeness or correctness of the 9/11 Commission Report, I would suggest they wait until I actually say something of the sort.

[Grateful for Hope]

116. Nope

Several of us are "awaiting" your response.

This has nothing to do with HR.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Oh, yes it does....

And I will be glad to answer whenever he points out all those he claims believe the 9/11 Commission Report is totally correct and totally complete. As for you, before I even begin to respond to your question, are you claiming I have ever said the 9/11 Commission Report is totally correct and complete?

[Grateful for Hope]

122. Oh well.

I guess when you don't want to answer, you will continue to bate HR.

Predictable.

[HamdenRice]

124. I'll name YOU

If you can't describe any disagreement that you have with the 9/11 Commission, then, logically you agree with the 9/11 Commission Report

If you don't state how you think the 9/11 Commission got anything wrong then you will be demonstrating my point.

All your incredibly stupid rhetorical distractions cannot take away from that obvious fact.

[Grateful for Hope]

125. Good response, HR n./t

[SDuderstadt]

128. Nice try, Hamden...

If you have to ask me for my position, it's pretty clear that you don't know it. You can't wiggle out of your rather stupid claim. Point to ANY post in which I claimed the 9/11 Commission Report was totally correct or complete. You can't, because I have never said anything remotely like it. Beyond that, I challenge you to find a SINGLE post of mine in which I cite the 9/11 Commission Report as my source (I'll save you some time here...I NEVER have). And you can bluster all you want but your claim was that most OCTers (whatever those are) defend the 9/11 Commission Report as totally correct and complete. Yet, when asked to name these people, you not only can't name a single one, you clumsily try to demand that I disprove YOUR claim. Pathetic.

Again, Hamden, you don't get off the hook by asking questions when you're asked a direct question. Can you name these people or not? I have already challenged your claim about me by pointing to your absolute lack of evidence. I don't have to disprove your claim; all I have to do is show that you've failed to prove it. And, you fell flat on your face. Don't you think the 9/11 truth movement is already embarrassed enough by the "no-planers", "9/11 was an inside job!" and "the WTC was nuked!" crowd? Why would you want to make it even more embarrassed?

Save yourself some time and just admit what is so obvious to everyone else: you can't name a single "OCTer" (as you call us) who has ever claimed the 9/11 Commission Report was totally correct or complete.

[HamdenRice]

130. You continue to demonstrate the correctness of my point nt

[SDuderstadt]

131. Wrong...

you just got busted on your false claim and you don't know what else to do.

[hack89]

134. He is right

I searched and can't find anyone that supports the 911 Commission report in its entirety. Did I miss something that you were able to find? Or did you fabricate your original claim?

[Diane_nyc]

135. Disagreements with the 9/11 CR

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=203375&mesg_id=213667">hack89 wrote:

I searched and can't find anyone that supports the 911 Commission report in its entirety.

Perhaps there are no people here who will say outright that they support the 9/11 CR in its entirety. However, when someone repeatedly refuses to talk about one's specific disagreements with the 9/11 CR, then the person's claim to have such disagreements rings a little hollow. When a person spends all of one's time here shooting down other people's disagreements with either the 9/11 CR or other aspects of "the official story," then the person is effectively an official-story defender, despite whatever hidden disagreements the person might have.

See the following posts of mine:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212462">"Debunkers"


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=212753">I'm sure this must be very frustrating. I have a suggestion.

[Realityhack]

105. Realy?

'Most' of the 'OCTers' have told you that the 9/11 commission report got "everything" right?

Who would those people be?

[Grateful for Hope]

107. Spell Check is your friend, n/t

[Realityhack]

109. no it hates me.

I try but things still get through.

[Grateful for Hope]

111. That is unfortunate. n/t

[LARED]

112. Relax people, this is standard Hamden discourse

Misrepresent, mis-characterize, fudge, etc, what others say in hopes of demonizing, belittling, those that do not march in lockstep with his world view.

[Diane_nyc]

136. What is an official-story defender?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=203375&mesg_id=211281">HamdenRice wrote:

97. What's wrong with it?

Edited on Sat Jun-21-08 11:41 AM by HamdenRice
It simply stands for "Official Conspiracy Theorist." Most of the OCTers have told us with endless repitition that the 9/11 Commission, the official report, got everything right and complete (even though the Chairmen no longer stand by their findings).

It isn't accurate to say that most official-story defenders claim that the 9/11 CR got everything right.

However, what makes them official-story defenders is that, despite an occasional claim to have some disagreements with the 9/11 CR, they rarely if ever talk about those disagreements beyond an occasional vague mention, and instead spend nearly all their time, here in this forum, shooting down other people's disagreements with the 9/11 CR and other official reports.

See the following post of mine: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212534">What makes someone an "official story defender"?

[Grateful for Hope]

110. Why do you YOU insist on distracting from this interchange?

hmmmm...

[LARED]

115. Interchange?

Do you mean exchange or intercourse?

I'm just asking as I know you are checking everyones spell-checking.

[Grateful for Hope]

126. RELAX PEOPLE

This is standard LARED distraction.

[Realityhack]

121. sorry...

what interchange?

I replied directly to the OP. I don't think I sidetracked anyones sub-thread.

As far as I can tell some people here self identify as 'truthers' or as 'part of the truth movement'

I don't know anyone who identifies themselves as an official conspiracy theorist. Like toofer it is a partitive as far as I can tell. The OP seemed to be intentionally trying to bait people by using it.

After reading the link I really honestly have absolutely no idea what this thread is supposed to be about other than promoting the OPs other thread which I found mostly fairly simplistic.