Why Condi Rice Absolutely Cannot Testify.

[Solomon]

Because, not being "in the loop", she has already made a fatal mistake. Her collossal foot in the mouth occurred right after 9-11.

Let's analyze this please. Everybody knows that the threat of a hijacker using a plane as a missile has been well known by government officials at a minimum, from 1993-1994 when it was revealed through testimony in the '93 WTC bombing. After that the subject continually came up, all the way to July 2001 when Bush attended a conference in Italy and they had to worry about a plane being used as a missile.

Rice's blunder was this: She said after 9-11. "We thought there would be traditional hijackings, no one imagined that they could be used as missiles".

Now. Why would a National Security Advisor say such a thing? Why would she say "no one imagined the planes could be used as missiles?

The only possible explanation is that she was told IN ADVANCE that a "traditional hijacking" was going to occur.

What really concerns me about the "traditional hijackings" is that the hijackings were done with boxcutters, not bombs or guns.
Think about it. How Bush would have looked like such a hero storming those planes after they landed somewhere. Minimal loss of life because how many people can you kill with boxcutters before the storm troopers get you?

In addition, you have Barbara Olson on one of the flights. Placed there to get the inside story of the rescue.

The only reason that Condi couldn't imagine planes used as missiles is that SHE WAS TOLD that they were just traditional hijackings.

I want her to explain her statement under oath. If she didn't imagine them being used as missiles then we been paying her for nothing. Did she read anything when she assumed office?

How hilarious is it for her and Cheney to say Clarke doesn't know what he's talking about because he was "out of the loop." This is precisely what Clarke is testifying about. That they wouldn't listen. They corroborate his testimony better than anyone.

Lastly, did you tell Willie Brown not to take a plane that day and why did you do that?

[HFishbine]

1. "The only possible explanation"

is not the only possible explaination.

[Solomon]

5. You're right HFishbine. There exist two other possibilities:

1. she's so stupid she read none of the national security documents when she took office.

2. she knows what she said is a lie, and she's banking on the public being stupid and not knowing that the threat of using planes as missiles was well known among national security people.

Can you think of any other possibilities?

[HFishbine]

9. My other possibilities

were variations of the others you added. I think they are just as viable. We'll eventually know. Probably sooner than later.

[info being]

41. I'm not so sure we'll ever know

[shekina]

11. I doubt Rice is stupid

Not defending her actions, but Rice is most definitely not a dummy. She's probably one of the smartest women on the planet. I'd havta go with your second option. This whole admin. is banking on the public being stupid.

[sendero]

80. I wonder...

... just on what you base the idea she is exceptionally intelligent?

Because of her academic achievements? Please, folks with average or slightly above average intelligence can get a Phd. It is 90% perspiration and perseverence.

Facility with language is considered a hallmark of intelligence. On that measure, she's only a little better than Bush*.

Sorry, I'd be really surprised if her IQ is above 110. She would not be in the mess she is in today if she were really smart. "smartest woman on the planet" - that is beyond hyperbole, my wife could chew her up and spit her out.

[Warpy]

17. She's not stupid

She is one of the foremost scholars in the country on the cold war.

However, she has been unable to let go of the cold war model, and has not managed to cope with the reality of the world situation today. She has been as blinded by her ideology as the other cold warriors in the White House and Pentagon, and it shows rather badly. These people insist on focusing on states and governments, and were utterly blindsided when the warnings about a criminal organization turned out to be accurate.

She is hoping the public will be satisfied with talk show "testimony." I'm afraid this will not be the case, as the point was hammered home again and again by the commission that her testimony was needed and lacking.

If she testifies under oath, she faces either telling the truth and discrediting her whole career, or lying and ending up in the Christian hell. If she doesn't, she will be discredited, period, and will have trouble returning even to academia (which is where she belongs).

This is the stuff of tragedy, folks, the person with superior skills and knowledge who was so blinded by ideology that she fell farther than she rose.

[shekina]

25. good reply

Just wanted to say that

[Athame]

37. Operation Northwoods

was a Cold War model. Condi may have been misled about the true intentions of the operation on 9-11, but she knew that it was going down. She may have been told that it would be "traditional hijackings"--that would make sense. She supposedly also said she thought the first plane was an accident and that there were fires on Capitol Hill. Her use was as the conduit to shrub* to provide plausible deniability.


You know, I usually add the :tinfoilhat: when I post these things, but I think it is time to stop trivializing the suspicions and to start making the accusations straight out. If we don't, they will get away with it all.

[Solomon]

45. Shit. Pass the hat. I'll wear it proudly.

[Bake]

78. Her inability to let go of an outdated cold war model

indicates that she is perhaps NOT the brilliant thinker everyone wants to give her credit for being.

Bake

[Solomon]

79. Look. Is there any doubt she was always window dressing?

Obviously she wasn't "in charge" of anything except going out in public and lying. This administration has put a shadow department behind everything, including National Security. They got enormous benefit out of using her as cover, and quite honestly, they're still reaping it since she's a good scapegoat. Her incompetence won't affect Bush with his supporters. They'll just think he messed up trying to give blacks a chance.

[kiahzero]

2. Hate to blow your theory, but there's a more reasonable answer

She was spinning. Her line attempts to make 9/11 an inevitable thing, something that no one could have done anything to stop.

[buycitgo]

76. spinning?

SPINNING?

how bout LYING her ASS off?

[Beetwasher]

3. Rice Has Told the Biggest Most Blatant Lies

If she ever had to testify under oath she would either have to commit perjury or she'd indict herself.

Everyone else in the admin. has always used carefully constructed responses and non-denial denials that are TECHNICALLY correct, though incredibly misleading. Rice however was the one person who they sent out to blatantly lie. They used her badly and she would be totally busted if she had to testify under oath.

[bryant69]

4. This is a bit all over the map

Are you suggesting that Condi Rice knew about the 9/11 incident before it happened, but thought it would only be a hijacking? Do you believe that others in the Bush administration knew that September 11th was coming and either didn't stop it or actively assisted it to happen (as some on here have proposed, in order to scare the American people into letting him invade Iraq?

And if yes, well, than doesn't that throw Richard Clarke out the window? If the government planned to murder or to allow to be murdered 3,000 of its citizens, than Richard Clarke must be in on it, or he'd be dead. Presumably he is distracting us from the real crime by suggesting that the Bush Administration is incompetent, when the fact is they were dreadfully competent.

But I could be mistaken.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Solomon]

12. Rice and Cheney clearly stated that Clarke was "not in the loop."

What do you think that means? Here's a guy who had access to presidents for almost thirty years, and then with Bush II, he has to go through some deputy committees to do his job.

Why did they shunt him off to the deputy committees?

Yes, I do think that Condi knew in advance about the traditional hijacking. How do you explain none of them telling the airlines to beef up security, etc.?

I don't see where any of this throws Richard Clarke out the window at all.

Why did she ignore the guy. He kept hammering away at it and they ignored him.

[terisel]

16. Did Richard Clarke give the August 6 2001 Intel Briefing to Bush?

Is Calpundit correct below when he says that the person giving Bush the August 6, 2001 briefing on terrorism was Richard Clarke?

<http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003187.html>

Richard Clarke, the former NSC counterterrorism expert from Bush I, Clinton and 2 years plus of Bush II is publishing his insider book that takes no prisnors. Word is that Rove is very afraid of what Clarke has to say -- particularly because Clarke was the August 6 2001 briefer of Bush, and there is a good deal about how he got told never to raise such matters again with Bush....The close collaborator with Richard Clarke -- going back to Bush I at NSC was Rand Beers -- who quit last summer in disgust, and walked down the street and volunteered his services to Kerry, where he has been ever since.

[bryant69]

19. If they are willing to kill 3,000 people

Why in Gods name leave him alive? Do you really doubt that they could make it look like an accident?

[Solomon]

30. Perhaps being a member of National Security for thirty years,

Clarke has squirreled something away to protect himself with. He certainly looks very confident and unafraid.

Not only that, but as I said, Condi wasn't "in the loop" so how would she know that 3,000 people would die?

[worldgonekrazy]

59. Perhaps her role was precisely not to be in the loop

And the fact that she was not, as National Security Advisor, would open up a whole pandora's box of quesitons that would bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

[Beetwasher]

53. Clarke Is Thoroughly Protected and CAN'T Be Intimidated

After 30 years in intel as a HIGH LEVEL PLAYER under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, you can rest assured that Clarke has some very serious and dangerous people covering his back. People whos names are only known to people like Clarke. I'm sure he knows people who can get to Cheney if necessary and Cheney knows it too. Clarke is untouchable at this point.

Not to mention he's also protected by going public. If anything should happen to him now it would look mighty suspicious.

[Terran]

31. Except Rice has been reported as saying just the opposite

This a LBN piece today: Rice saying that Clarke was indeed very much involved in anti-terrorism activities in the WH. The story is that Cheney and Rice are contradicting each other on this rather important point...

Dirk

[Solomon]

36. I'm glad you brought this up because I have been tripping on how the

media is now spinning this. I specifically saw and heard Condi say right after the book was published, that Clarke doesn't know what he's talking about, he wasn't involved.

Now that it looks like both she and Cheney are actually corroborating the man, all of a sudden, it's now, they differ with each other about it. I don't buy it for one second.

Since neither one of them will testify, I guess we won't get any answers will we?

[leftchick]

42. I heard her say it also...

it was on one of the Sunday talking head shows...

[Solomon]

46. Thanks Leftchick. This was starting to bother me.

I know what I saw and heard, but the media always tells us otherwise.

[Fleshdancer]

32. if the govt did LIHOP, then that would mean....

...that Cheney was actually telling the truth when he said Clarke was "out of the loop".

I don't know if I believe they LIHOP though. Would they really take that kind of risk in hopes that it would spur the American public to agree with another war with Iraq? Even "traditional" hijackings are unpredictable.

[Athame]

52. No, that's why it has to be MIHOP

They had to be in control of it from the top down. They could not take the risk of simply allowing some "traditional hijacking" to do the trick. For one thing, the huge loss of life was absolutely necessary to the PNAC plan. The American public would not have supported the invasion of Afghanistan, let alone Iraq, without it.

The whole idea of LIHOP is just a rest stop for those who won't let themselves consider the possibilities of our own government officials being that craven. "They could not have known how bad it would be...they would not have let 3000 people die...etc., etc." The problem is that good people cannot conceive of such evil, unless they have been exposed to it up close and personal, and sometimes even then. The mind rejects the thought. And they don't want to believe they could have been fooled.

But this admin has shown time and again that they are more than willing to let thousands of people die; they have no shame at all about lying to bring about their goals (nor about completely covering up their real goals); they have no respect at all for the people or the laws of this country or the world; their only interest is in lining their own pockets and gaining ultimate power.

They have not even bothered to try to convince anyone of the official 9-11 storyline. There has been no evidence given and certainly no case made for the many, many unanswered questions. The commission starts with the assumption as fact of the official story, even though the only court trials of individuals allegedly involved have been thrown out both here and in Germany for lack of evidence. Anyone of consequence who dares to question any of it publicly, though, gets the Cynthia McKinney, or the anthrax treatment (Daschle, Leahy, News media). The same is true for criticisms of the economy or the Iraq invasion---Paul O'Neill, Scott Ritter, Joseph Wilson ...

It's incredibly courageous of Clarke to have come forward and to have remained so clear and vocal, but I believe it is all part of the game. Not that he is part of the "conspiracy" but that he serves to reinforce the main cover for MIHOP, that being that the perpetrators of 9-11 were Osama Bin Laden and his band of terrorists. All of the chatter and warnings could also just have been planted disinformation. I am beginning to question even the USS Cole and the embassy bombings. The timing of the Cole incident has not been discussed here, as far as I know, but when one puts it together with the story of John O'Neil and the 2000 "election", the Spanish train bombing and their election (for timing--the result could have gone awry, but the blame on Al Q is true to form), and a few other facts together, it only adds to the pattern.

Tired of beating around the bush, so to speak.

Ma

[CaptainMidnight]

54. BINGO!@!

Yeah, babe.

Now yer gettin' it.

My thought is the Cole bombing, Khobar Towers, etc., were merely ways to "build up" Osama. We had to do the "Advance Publicity," so WHEN 9-11 was then foisted up the American people, we wouldn't go, "WHO?"

Those prior AQ attacks, I believe, were the REAL perpetrators' way of establishing Osama's street cred.

Captain Mike

[worldgonekrazy]

61. You may be right

I'm still holding on to LIHOP, but really it doesn't matter because if it was MIHOP there is absolutely no way the commission would EVER let the public find out. LIHOP is, IMO, the farthest the commission could possibly go and I don't think they would go that far even if they knew for certain it was MIHOP.

[BOSSHOG]

6. Solomon is very wise

Taking the heat for not testifying is far less damaging than if she raised her right hand and swore to tell the truth. Add to the puzzle, the White House LIHOP so bush could do cheney's energy task force bidding by securing the iraqi oil fields and letting halliburton have no bid contracts - mission accomplished. And cheney so far has the SCOTUS votes to ensure that dirty little secret remains so. It must really suck being a republican.

[enough]

7. Very important point, Solomon. Buzzflash is on the same subject today.

Buzzflash today has a long hard-hitting editorial delving into this same subject, with several links to documentation of the warnings and their admissions that they knew.

I can't seem to copy any snips, but I HIGHLY recommend this:

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/03/edi04021.html


Buzzflash concludes:

They knew and did nothing.

This is not speculation. This is fact.

They are condemned by their own words

[Solomon]

28. Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that.

I wish the doubters would explain to me how she would respond to a specific question asking her why she said what she said.

Is she expected to say, "oh, you know, I was just spinning". "I told a lie"?

It can be proved that she knew about planes used as missiles.

Oops. On second thought, I guess I'm answering my own question. Since they knew she could hide behind executive privilege, just send her out to lie.

Either way, it means that she can't possibly testify without really fucking up.

[Az]

8. LIHOPBSUBNTIT

Let It Happen On Purpose But Screwed Up By Not Thinking It Through.

They were willing to let a certain amount of damage happen. Maybe a hostage situation. Or a blown up jet. But they didn't think it through. They had squashed all the reports so bad that the intel services were feeding back on themself and could not get through to them.

Their egomaniacal belief of divine providence and moral superiority lead them to this. They so beleived their own rhetoric that they though they could pull it off. They cost us dearly.

[Beetwasher]

13. Yeah

I'm of two minds on this (sort of). I think they got played by their Saudi business partners. They were getting signals that SOMETHING was coming but the Saudi's told them to either A. Not worry about it because these guys were their operatives and were working on something else that was going to take place overseas and they should pull back the investigations or B. They (Bushco.) knew that something was going to happen here and were willing to let it, but didn't realize the scale. Either way, I believe the Saudi's played them for suckers.

[Turbineguy]

40. So what you are saying is they wanted

allow a little hijacking, then foil it with little or no damage but things went terribly wrong?

It sounds terribly dangerous and fraught with imponderables. Considering their reluctance to go after Bin Laden because of their risk aversion to collateral damage, this does not sound plausible.

There were thousands of people looking to catch hijack plots. To run such a plot would require the help of many people, any one of whom could turn once the true outcome was revealed or even before.

Well we know that the PNAC wanted a Pearl Harbor sized unifying event, which tells us that they were certainly not averse to sacrificing about 2500 Americans to further their agenda.

In the end I think it will turn out that both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration will be left wanting.

The Clinton Administration has the mitigation that due to the well orchestrated constant RW attacks, their ability to attack Al-Qeada was hobbled.

The Bush Administration did not have anything like that to contend with. No Bush critics were ever against going after terrorists. Nor prior to 9/11 do I recall any Bush critics suggesting that to do so was just a diversion from the "real" issues.

It's certainly possible that they could have done more to catch the 9/11 plot. But then you can always say that (although the 1 page memo length maximum and 15 minute meeting limits are a problem).

After the 9/11 attack, Bush did rather well in regard to Afghanistan. (His behavior on 9/11 can always be explained in terms of the general confusion). He gave the Taliban the chance to make amends by turning over bin Laden and promising to sin no more. When they did not we attacked and threw them out.

Then the Bush Admin sidetracked this good course of action by attacking Iraq, once again following the PNAC agenda.

All of the consequences of this have been discussed here and have occurred pretty much as predicted.

And that's were we are now.

[Solomon]

47. Uh. Allow me to correct you on one teeny tiny teeny detail.

The taliban DID NOT REFUSE to turn over Bin Laden. What they said was, SHOW US SOME EVIDENCE THAT HE'S INVOLVED AND WE WILL TURN HIM OVER.

This something that any sovereignty would do. Did we provide them any evidence? No. We bombed the shit out of them.

Just thought I'd mention that.

[klyon]

73. Ya that what I remember too

As I recall they were about to turn him over without evidence.
Bush is not good at diplomacy especially when it gets in the way of something he wants, like a pipeline.

KL

[leftchick]

48. I like this ... LIHOPBPGP!

I believe Oaf of Office gets credit for this addition to LIHOP....

Let It Happen On Purpose But Players Get Played

I totaly agree with this theory.

[Solomon]

50. I call it ye ole doublecross.

[skypilot]

10. I'm sure she's read transcripts of testimony...

...from when the commission questioned various NORAD officials. One of those officials made the claim that no one could have foreseen planes being used in such a way and one of the commissioners (Ben-Veniste, I think) immediately started reading off a list of instances in which the intelligence community uncovered plots to use airplanes as missiles. Condi doesn't want to go through that.

[Solomon]

14. I wouldn't want to have to explain that either. Because if she couldn't

have imagined it despite all the information given to her, then she needs to be fired as utterly incompetent.

[cetasika]

15. Why don't they force her to testify?

can any Democrat in congress make her?

[sangh0]

20. No

it takes a majority of Congresscritters to do that, and the Repukes hold the majority

[Virginian]

24. If she has "separation of powers" immunity, then

why did Powell testify. Doesn't he also have immunity?

[leftofthedial]

18. also, she is a pathetic liar

that is, she can not lie effectively

she knows the *bushgang are criminals and would certainly end up spilling the beans under questioning

[GoBlue]

21. Or more simply, in her own words,

She lacks the imagination to be National Security Advisor. "...no one imagined that they could be used as missiles."

[cmayer]

22. Question: Was Rice under oath before the 9-11 commission?

I have heard it asserted that Rice won't testify under oath. But I assumed that it meant "publicly" under oath.

News reports say that she has already testified for 4 hours privately. My question is: Was she under under oath?

Are there any news links that answer that question?

[Fleshdancer]

23. Don't forget this important fact:

I'm at a lost for celebrity names lately, but who was the Hollywood man who contacted the FBI after his odd flight weeks or a month prior to 9/11? Remember that? There were several suspicious men in first class with him and he thought at the time they might hijack the plane...it turned out to be a practice run and he was on one of the same flights (just earlier) that was hijacked.

Damn it, who was that? I remember listening to his story during a few interviews after 9/11 and getting pissed off at the FBI because of it.

Now would be a good time to revisit the letter that the FBI whistleblower wrote too. The Minnesota woman.

[Beetwasher]

27. James Woods

n/t

[Fleshdancer]

34. Thanks!

I could picture his face, just couldn't remember the name.

[Virginian]

29. I can't remember his name either, but didn't he wait until after 9/11

to piece it together and go to the FBI with his story?

Funny, before 9/11 my biggest fear of other passengers was that I would get stuck beside someone who smelled bad. I thought screeners were taking care of all the dangerous things.

[Fleshdancer]

33. as I remember it, he contacted the FBI after his flight

but I could be wrong. I'll look it up again.

on edit: oops, I was wrong. Here's the story:

On a flight to Los Angeles several weeks before the attacks on September 11th, 2001, James Woods grew suspicious of four of his fellow-passengers: well-dressed men who appeared to be of Middle Eastern extraction.

Woods became so convinced that the men were "casing" the plane that he kept his cutlery after lunch and shared his suspicions with a flight attendant. "I said, 'I think this plane is going to be hijacked.' I told her, 'I know how serious it is to say this,' and asked to speak to the captain. The first officer promptly assured Woods that the cockpit door would be kept locked and the plane landed safely.

flight had gone. "Aside from the terrorists and the turbulence," he drily replied, "it was fine."

On the evening of September 11th, Woods told the FBI in Los Angeles about the encounter. At six-forty-five the next morning he was roused by a telephone call from an FBI agent. "I said, 'I'll get ready and I'll come down to the federal building,'" Woods recalled. "He said, 'That's O.K. We're outside your house.'" When he was shown photographs, Woods thought he recognized two of the hijackers - Hamza Alghamdi, who was on United Airlines Flight 175 (which struck the south tower of the World Trade Center) and Khalid Almihdhar, who was on American Airlines Flight 77 (which struck the Pentagon).

[rustydog]

26. A hijacking is a hijacking is a hijacking:

Whether you use a bomb, a gun or a knife.
You stop these hijackings the same way.
Whether you use the hijacked plane to fly to Cuba or into a building.
stopping both is done the same way. Stopping the hijacking, period!

It is irrelevent what the motives are, it is irrelevent what the intended result was, and it is immaterial what the weapons used were.

Bush failed to take action to stop hijackings by AlQaeda. hijackings that his intelligence services wasr very concerned about and that they were imminent.
Had Bush taken the steps Clinton did (which caught the Millenium bomber)perhaps our pilots-in-training would have been rooted-out making the flying into buildings plan moot.

These people are complicit in the deaths of 3000 Americans and guildy of obstructing the investigation into the cause.
impeachable offense.

[RedSock]

35. scramble

military planes were not scrambled after the planes were known to be hijacked.

but let's say no one knew what the result of the hijacking was. planes still should have been scrambled. it was what rice calls "a normal hijacking" until the first hit -- yet no planes were scrambled for another hour -- after the pentagon was hit

or did they ask the hijackers what there were going to do with the plane before deciding that it was traditional and therefore we should respond?

it is laughable on its face.

[Virginian]

67. A "normal" hijacking?

What is normal about four planes being hijacked at the same time?

Even in "Normal" hijackings people get killed. Didn't a plane full of hostages matter?

[Kahuna]

38. And even if the good old terrorists *ONLY* hijack a plane..

everybody KNOWS they would basically do like the Cubans used to do. Make their political statement, not harm anyone and go on about their way..... NOT!!!!

[TacticalPeek]

39. "I never imagined that I would have to answer questions under oath."

Waive executive privilege.

Make her take the Fifth.

:evilgrin:

[chookie]

43. Some stuff to add

If NeoCondi and His Chimperial Highness were so focused on Al Qaeda and terrorism from Day One -- why would they marginalize a guy like Clarke, who "shared" this view, and had such expertise about these terrorist groups? Now, if he was babbling on and on about UFOs being behind terror, I could see they pushing him aside, but gee -- a guy who felt that Al Qaeda was #1 National security threat?

NeoCondi sneers that he "did not have a comprehensive plan." Allow me to translate that into English: what that means is Clarke did not provide a plan that included an attack on Iraq as the main strategy to combat terrorism. That's what His Chimperial Highness wanted to hear -- not some stuff about regularly taking out terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and ratcheting up alerts at home.

You may recall that NeoCondi talked a lot about "The Cold War is over" pre-Sept 11. Translated, that meant that the PNAC plan was underway -- that there was no other Superpower to oppose the US if it moved into the Middle East and began to completely transform it, to pacify it to get it under the control of US and Israeli interests, starting with Iraq, IMHO.

If Christian George was really telling the truth about wanting to pursue a "humble foreign policy" and was only turned to war in response to the horrors of Sept 11 -- why oh why did he from the beginning select close advisors like Wolfowitz, Perle, Poindexter, Negroponte, Bolten, etc, who were well know for decades in advocating military initiatives for a "WWIV" solution to the world's problems? Why appoint a Sovietologist as his National Security advisor -- who candidly admitted pre-Sept 11 that she had little expertise regarding the Middle East -- if he was focused like a laser on terrorism?

[leftchick]

49. eloquent post chookie!... and I might add..

What bothers me most right now as I watch this circus on my tv. Why no follow up questions to the "laser beam"? No one asks the neo-con idiots what they did to thwart terrorism. They just use this empty rhetoric over and over. I mean WTF did they do?

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

44. Compared to Articulate Clarke she is stupid

Who would you rather have watching over terrorism? Rhetorical Question. Makes me sad that bobbles is still in charge of our security while Clarke is not!

[9215]

77. Oh, yer just being racist!

((just kidding))

Welcome to DU

[Old and In the Way]

51. The players got played.

I'm convinced that they knew something was going to go down...and on that day too. I think that may very well be why Clarke's position was downgraded months earlier. Here's why:

* Cheney's secret energy meetings. I'm sure the motive rests there. They spent the spring/summer divvying up Iraq and were going to use Afghanistan as the initial insertion point, probably to get the pipeline protected. Remember, the plans to invade Afghanistan was on Bush's desk 9/10 awaiting his signature.....a bit premature without a reason, no?

* What better way to get the public's support for war and drive up Dimson's poll numbers than having a huge hijacking spectacular? A made-for-TV event.

* To assure a successful hijacking, it was imperitive that GWB was inaccessible for a critical amount of time so as not to have shootdown orders conveyed. 93 was delayed on the tarmac for 20 minutes, otherwise all 4 would have occurred simultaneously...seems that 77 was in a hold pattern awaiting 93's arrival on the scene. If 93 was not delayed, there would have been no reason to question the AF's lack of action's that day.

* And who might have been the grand wizard in this? None other than GWHB, who just happened to be in Washington on 9/10. He was in the WH on that night while his son was in Florida. What was this former CIA chief doing theret? Who did he meet with?


Yeah, I think they had some stoved piped intel that led them to think they knew what AQ had planned. And I believe they were careful to make sure no premature information found it's way up the official channels so as to provide evidence that "Bush Knew".....except for the 8/6 BDP that was leaked.

And, true to form, I think Dimson blew his cover on that day with his throw away line. "I saw that 1st plane hit the WTC...I thought that was one terrible pilot". That was either an incredibly stupid thing to say or he really did see it, on CCTV. Remember that van that was spotted filming the 1st event? That disappeared down the wabbit hole pretty quick, didn't it?

Sp I think this administration was totally capable and motivated to facilitate a spectacular hijacking in order to kick off Pax Americana. They were dumb enough to provide the PNAC blueprint for all to see. They had motivations: oil, bases, and contracts. All they needed was an event to put it into play.

I think that's what George was doing on his summer vacation....preparing. I also think that when the whole thing blew up in his face, that was why they disappeared for 7 hours or so...they needed time to rewrite the script.

[Aries]

56. Rewriting the script...

>I also think that when the whole thing blew up in his face, that was why they disappeared for 7 hours or so...they needed time to rewrite the script.

Yeah, and at Offutt AFB, no less. Just missed Warren Buffett's golf tournament, too:

http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html

"...So where was Warren Buffett the morning of 9/11 and what was he doing?

Mr. Buffett was reportedly at his home in Omaha, Nebraska watching TV when he heard about the terrorist attacks. He was getting ready to host his "last annual golf charity event" which just happened to be at the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters located at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha. Offutt AFB is, coincidentally, where President G. W. Bush flew to on Air Force One later in the day for "safety". This early golf charity event hosted by Mr. Buffett was to include celebrities, professional athletes, and a small group of business leaders in which one of these business leaders became a very lucky person.

This very lucky person was Ann Tatlock, the CEO of Fiduciary Trust Co. International. Now what made Mrs. Tatlock such a lucky person for being invited to this charity event that morning? Mrs. Tatlock not only works in the World Trade Center, but her offices were right where Flight 175 crashed into the WTC 2....

[Mandate My Ass]

57. Applause

That certainly ties up the loose ends very nicely. :thumbsup:

[Junkdrawer]

60. I agree so much, I started this thread on Tuesday...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1268762&mesg_id=1268762

[Old and In the Way]

62. Thanks for the plug!

It's like a jigsaw puzzle viewed through an opaque lens. DU has been a oasis of thought with re: 9/11 facts and analysis...in this Administration's desert of disinformation and truth avoidance.

[Solomon]

63. Gotta gi ve you props on this one Old and In the Way.

Extremely well said. The wisdom of age. (bowing solemnly)

[sable302]

66. They did know it, and I have the proof

but nobody believes me, though God knows I've tried to get somebody to listen to me.

Here's my story

I was flying on September 11, 2001 with my wife and child from Edinburgh, Scotland to Atlanta. We were connecting in London, and my flight was to leave at 1:00 GMT (6:00 AM east coast). at 12:30 or so (5:30 or so east coast 2.5 or 3 hours before the first plane hit, so well before it even took off or was hijacked), suddenly all flights from London to the US were cancelled for the rest of the day. Americans and others were scrambling all over the place to find hotel rooms and we were all told that flights were cancelled BECAUSE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PROBLEMS IN WASHINGTON DC. This was before the first hijacked plane was even boarded, much less in the air. We called around and found one of the last hotel rooms, moved in, had lunch, shopped at a local store for food, and then settled into our room and turned on the TV and were shocked to see the second plane hit the WTC.

The point is, what other air traffic control issue was going on in washington DC that day that was big enough to ground flights coming to the US from London a full hour and a half before the first hijacking?

Somebody help me out here, because I have told just about everyone I can think of and it's stil bothering me. Did they know of a hijacking plot and think it was to be trans-atlantic and just missed the boat? Or did they prevent even more bad stuff from happening? I don't know, but I simply refuse to believe that nobody knew what was going to happen that day.

[Sterling]

72. Yes hey flew around to see how America reacted.

Offet is key I am sure. He wanted to be with his rich buddies in case the plot blew up and they were exposed.

[TNOE]

55. Not buying it

Too many suspicious things around the WTC - the manipulation of gold prices lawsuit against J.P. Morgan, et al - ALL evidence just so happened to be stored in the WTC - the WTC being bought and sold in July, 2001 with a terrorism clause written in the insurance policy, the fact that the air space around the WTC had been a no-fly zone since its inception - and the fact that there were obviously bombs placed in the building and detonated - not very timely by the way... and the $11 million is was going to cost to remove asbestos from the WTC....

We don't really know for SURE that the hijackers were only using boxcutters - that line was put out to save the airelines from being sued - as to how were weapons allowed on the planes. We only know of 2 hijackers - who undoubtedly didn't know they were on a suicide mission -

no this was a crime and treason, not just a "cover up" of failures.

[Solomon]

64. Good point about the boxcutters. Notice how Olson's "call" got through

to "confirm" that boxcutters were used.

Wonder if Ted has been promised a spot on the Supreme Court? We know Scalia's got that chief justice spot sewn up.

When you start to list all the damn coincidences, it's startling. The minor players were told it would be a hijacking. They staged a drill so that a stand down could be down with an excuse. But the big players, knew that it would be more than a "traditional hijacking."

[LunaC]

68. About those boxcutters.....

Somewhere in the flurry of info coming from the 911 Commission was the revelation that boxcutters were NOT used! They used 4' knives which were allowed on planes at that time. If I'm not mistaken, the knives had serrated edges. Like the ones the military uses.

[TahitiNut]

69. They WEREN'T carrying boxcutters.

The 9-11 commission has, according to reports, determined that they were actually carrying knives and mace. There has been no confirmation (in the debris or otherwise) that they carried boxcutters. That was a questionable report from only one flight.

9/11 Hijackers Used Mace And Knives, Panel Reports

By Sara Kehaulani Goo and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 28, 2004; Page A01

The hijackers of Sept. 11, 2001, blasted Mace or pepper spray at flight crew members and passengers to keep them away from the cockpits and wielded knives in their orchestrated takeovers of the aircraft, according to a report issued yesterday by the commission investigating the attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54385-2004Jan27?language=printer

[worldgonekrazy]

58. She can't testify because she is the linchpin

All the questions of intelligence and failed action come back to her. If she goes in front of the commission under oath she will either have to perjure herself or bring the entire cabinet (and perhaps more) down with her testimony.

[Disturbed]

65. Testimony behind closed doors

Richard Clark testified for 15 hrs. in secret. 15 hrs. Think about that.

[Manix]

70. I think the Martha thing scared her. She saw the repercussions of

lying to government authorities, especially if she takes an oath.

[PaDUer]

71. Lou Dobbs....

just said Condi has requested to meet w/ the commission AGAIN in private due to what Clarke said...

[Solomon]

74. They should just tell her they'll watch her on Faux News.

[Solomon]

75. Im kicking this up again since now Condi wants to change the

very phrase that I'm focusing on.

[Solomon]

81. Kick