shortly after 911, condy said something that seems to implicate bushco....

[Gato Moteado]

....i know i've posted this here before, but i think it bears repeating. and repeating. and repeating. until people start talking about it.

while i'm not a MIHOPer, i have always felt that bushco knew there was going to be a hijacking and they did little or nothing to stop it. condy rice, in a shaky voice, came out after 911 and said something that solidified that feeling. does everyone remember condy saying these words:

"if we had known that the terrorists were goign to hijack the planes AND run them into the buildings we would have done everything in our power to stop them."

if anyone can locate the video of condy saying those words, please watch it over and over again. she really emphasized the word "and" as if bushco did know that some hijackings were going to happen but that they didn't realize the hijackers would attack the WTC. and the only reason they did nothing to stop the hijackings was because they didn't know the WTC was a target.

there have been many accidental admissions by bushco officials that would seem to hint that they knew a hijacking or something was going to take place. but condy's little slip really hits home. for an admin that really wanted a war in the middle east, a terrorist hijacking would have been enough for them to sell their war. it's not hard to believe that bushco and their puppet masters would have little concern for a couple planes and a couple hundred lives if it meant getting their war. so, they sat back thinking everything was OK.

if i'm not mistaken, after finding out about the WTC attack, jeb bush was quoted as saying "was it the terrorists?". he didn't ask "was it terrorists?", he asked "was it THE terrorists?". which terrorists was he referring to? the ones that resided in and took flying lessons in his state? it really makes one wonder, doesn't it?

anyway, if anyone has any idea of how to find the video of a shaky condy rice uttering the ridiculous statement above, please post the URL here so we can all review it.

[MadMaddie]

1. You are right .....this is the kind of footage that needs to be

replayed over and over..

[liberalmuse]

2. Interesting Houston Chronicle/NY Times Article

I believe this article was orignally in the NY Times, but I cannot find a link to it. Here is part of the article:

Last Portion of Article. Please note the portion 'Bush Moves Slowly'. This was released on 12/31/2001:

A disjointed fight

As Clinton began his second term, U.S. intelligence agencies were assembling a clearer picture of the threat posed by bin Laden and al-Qaida.

A few months earlier, the first significant defector from al-Qaida had walked into a U.S. embassy in Africa and provided a detailed account of the organization's operations and ultimate objectives.

The defector, Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl, told U.S. officials that bin Laden had taken aim at the United States and other Western governments, broadening his initial goal of overthrowing Saudi Arabia and other "infidel" Middle Eastern governments.

But al-Fadl's statements were not widely circulated within the government. A senior official said their significance was not fully understood by Clinton's top advisers until his public testimony in 2000.

The war against al-Qaida remained disjointed. While the State Department listed bin Laden as a financier of terror in its 1996 survey, al-Qaida was not included on the list of terrorist organizations subject to various sanctions released by the United States in 1997.

"Almost all of the groups today, if they chose, have the ability to strike us in the United States," John O'Neill, the FBI's chief of international terrorist operations, warned in a June 1997 speech. "They are working toward that infrastructure." (O'Neill left the FBI this year for a job as chief of security at the World Trade Center, where he died Sept. 11.)

On Aug. 7, 1998, truck bombs were detonated outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people, including 12 Americans, and injuring more than 5,000.

...

Flying blind

The arrest of Ahmed Ressam was the clearest sign that bin Laden was trying to bring the jihad to the United States.

Ressam was arrested when he tried to enter the United States in Port Angeles, Wash., on Dec. 14, 1999. Inside his rental car, agents found 130 pounds of bomb-making chemicals and detonator components.

His arrest helped reveal what intelligence officials later concluded was an al-Qaida plot to unleash at least three attacks during the millennium celebrations, aimed at a U.S. ship in Yemen, tourist sites and a hotel in Jordan frequented by Israelis, and unknown targets in the United States.

"That was a wake-up call," a senior law enforcement officer said, "not for law enforcement and intelligence, but for policy-makers." The millennium plot revealed gaping vulnerabilities at home.

"If you understood al-Qaida, you knew something was going to happen," said Robert Bryant, deputy director of the FBI when he retired in 1999.

A White House review of U.S. defenses in March 2000, after Ressam's arrest, found significant shortcomings in nearly a decade of government efforts to improve defenses against terrorists at home. "We did not have any actionable intelligence," one senior official said. "We were flying blind."

...

Bush moves slowly

As he prepared to leave office last January, Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a fatalistic warning.

He said that terrorism - and particularly bin Laden's brand of it - would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.

But until Sept. 11, the people at the top levels of the new Bush administration, if anything, may have been less preoccupied by terrorism than the Clinton aides.

In March, the White House's Counterterrorism Security Group began drafting its own comprehensive strategy for combating al-Qaida.

Bush's principals did not formally meet to discuss terrorism in late spring when intercepts from Afghanistan warned that al-Qaida was planning to attack a U.S. target in late June or perhaps over the July 4 holiday.

Administration officials say the president was concerned about the growing threat and frustrated by the halfhearted efforts to thwart al-Qaida. In July, Rice said, Bush likened the response to the al-Qaida threat to "swatting at flies."

The Bush administration's draft plan for fighting al-Qaida included a $200 million CIA program that, among other things, would arm the Taliban's enemies. Bush's national security advisers approved the plan Sept. 4, a senior administration official said, and it was to be presented to the president Sept. 10. He was traveling that day and did not receive it.

The next day his senior national security aides gathered shortly before 9 a.m. for a staff meeting. At roughly the same moment, a hijacked Boeing 767 was plowing into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
Memo: This article was reported by Judith Miller, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. and written by Miller.
Edition: 4 STAR
Section: A
Page: 1
Index Terms: Assault On America
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle
Record Number: 3366101

[Contrary1]

20. Here's the link to that NYT article:

The first part of your post can be found on page 5.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/national/30TERR.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=e33d10b98e861bdd&ex=1159416000

[Old and In the Way]

3. As head of NSA, she failed her pResident.

Why wasn't she fired? Why weren't others fired? Because they were trying to do their jobs, but were being ignored. I think poor ol' Condi got set-up, royally. I suspect that they put her at NSA so she'd be the loyal buffer. I'm sure her marching orders were to keep terrorism a "no" priority issue with Bush. She was emotionally attached enough to him that she did it happily. When the shit went down on 9/11, she realized that she had made a Faustian bargin. It was her head that should have rolled...instead, she, too, was rewarded for her failure.

[The Deacon]

26. Kindasleezy WAS

NSA (as in National Security Advisor) NOT AT the NSA (as in National Security Agency.) As National Security Advisor she would lead the NSC (National Security Council) but headed no agency. Michael Hayden was the head of the NSA - the Agency responsible for eavesdropping for the U.S. government, cracking other countries codes & safeguarding our own codes.

[bananas]

4. I remember some of the details

It was a press conference
She said they thought it was going to be just a normal hijacking.
CNN reporter John King asked angrily, "So you weren't going to do anything because you thought it would be a normal hijacking where just a few passengers get shot in the head" (not an exact quote).

[Gato Moteado]

7. wow.....i never saw that part of the interview!

if that is true, that's enough evidence to string up her and the entire bush admin, by their toes!

[Gato Moteado]

10. oops...i forgot to ask: do you know where we can get the video?

KO needs to air that one on a nightly basis.

[Gato Moteado]

21. all i found was this.....

see the second part of this short video. is this the same interview where king asked her about the 911 hijackings?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ&NR

[bananas]

29. No, it wasn't an interview, it was a WH press conference

Rice was standing at the podium, many reporters sitting in chairs.
I don't think the transcript identifies which reporter asks which question.
I'll see if I can find it later.

edit: I think this was after the news reports that Willie Brown had been warned not to fly, and that the intelligence agencies of Egypt, Poland, Spain, etc all warned the U.S. that a major hijacking was going to happen.

[bananas]

31. I may have been mistaken

I may have been thinking of this press conference with Ari Fleischer.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/16/se.03.html

<snip>

(CROSSTALK)

FLEISCHER: Again, the president described the generalized nature of the information. And the information we had prior to 9-11 was generalized.

QUESTION: So if the hijackers (OFF-MIKE) September 11 that hijacked those planes and shot the passengers, somebody after the fact might have said, "Damn. You know, we had this generalized briefing, I wish we knew more." But because they flew them into buildings and killed the people, nobody said, "Damn. We had this generalized information, I wish we knew more."

FLEISCHER: Unfortunately, the threat of hijacking is not new. What was new was the manner in which this was done on September 11.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... nobody mentioned, nobody's trying to blame anybody, but why in eight months has nobody said there was this general mention of the possibility of a hijacking, I sure wish we knew more?

FLEISCHER: Because the hijacking information was so general it did not include any information about the use of airplanes, as they were done, on September 11.

FLEISCHER: Last question.

<snip>

[liberalmuse]

5. I agree with you!

I believe that Bush knew there would be attacks, but underestimated their scale. Interesting item you've brought up about the Bush and Rice statements. The evidence suggests they knew there would be hi-jackings. The briefings they were given in August indicated as such.

[SheilaT]

9. Around the time the Pentagon was hit

the networks were all reporting that a car bomb had gone off in front of the State Department, and that there were fires on the Mall. I remember getting very frustrated and angry at all the networks because none of them seemed interested in sending a reporter and a camera the two or three blocks necessary (quite literally) to see if those things had actually occurred. After an hour or two those reports simply stopped being made without any explanation.

My hypothesis is that someone somewhere (and I can't begin to guess who or where) gave some sort of implicit permission for something to happen -- maybe not exactly that day, but sometime around then. And what they thought they were giving permission for was something relatively small, like, say, a car bomb in front of the State Department and a few fires on the Mall. And I think that's exactly why those things were being reported and not verified for a period of time, because in all the confusion over what was actually happening, that information, now wildly inaccurate, was released nonetheless.

And it is extremely, extremely important, regardless of where you stand on what actually happened, to recall that we'd never had multiple hijackings in this country on a single day, and that almost invariably the hijacker wanted money or to go to Cuba or maybe get someone out of prison. There was one hijacking in which the hijacker threatened to crash the plane into a nuclear power plant, but that was such an aberration that hardly anyone was prepared to think about what actually did occur that day.

And for what it's worth, in all my ten years as an airline ticket agent at Washington National Airport, I never knew of plans in place to shoot down hijacked airplanes.

[bullimiami]

6. i cant get past

1) wtc 7 without a doubt was 'pulled'. it takes planning and time to place the charges.
2) and ... the 2 towers coming down virtually at the same time, the visible explosions on video and the absolute improbability of the way they came down.
3) the too small hole in the pentagon.
4) lack of curiosity in investigations.

I dont think there can be any answers to these questions except it was a conspiracy and members or our military, intel or government were involved.
The fact that the Bush team was not interested in any detailed investigations makes it a certainty that the controlling power within the WH was part of it.

[Gato Moteado]

8. i can't buy into MIHOP for a few reasons......

first of all, too many people would have to be involved and the truth would have surfaced before 911 even happened. besides, they wouldn't have needed to go to such great lengths to start their wars, a few simple hijackings by al qaeda would have been enough. and if al qaeda was going to oblige, all bushco wanted to do was sit back and let it happen.

also, while the bushco puppetmasters are truly evil, they just aren't smart enough to pull something of that magnitude off.

[bullimiami]

14. so the reason you cant believe it is just that it is so incredible.

but if you take facts and try to explain them, and they keep piling up, there is little room left for other conclusions.

[jobycom]

25. That complaint seems to apply more to the belief that explosives

brought the buildings down. I mean, none of what you said above has any evidence to support it. WTC was reported as verging on collapse all morning, so it was no surprise when it did. There were no visible explosions as the buildings collapsed--video footage clearly shows that the dust clouds--which we saw tons of after the full collapse--began blowing out of the windows AFTER the roofline began to dip--in other words, after the collapse started.

Evidence goes way against any theory that explosives brought anything down. So does common sense. How would someone wire these buildings above the damaged areas quickly enough to bring it down in an explosion? Do you know how many pounds of explosives and wire it would take? Someone would have to carry those thousands of pounds of explosives and wire up the stairs (the elevators were destroyed when flaming jet fuel shot down the shafts and incinerated people in the lobby), wire the building, and get out, all in a few minutes, because the stairs were choked with evacuees until just before the collapses. All of this while the place was surrounded by police, fire fighters, camera crews, etc. No one would notice a number of crates of explosives being carried into the lobbies and up the stairs?

Oh, but maybe they snuck in and wired the place the night before. Nice. So the planes didn't damage any of their explosives and wires, even with the ten story fireballs that exploded through both buildings, after being struck by 200 ton missiles flying at 500 and 600 mph, with flaming jet fuel shooting sixty and seventy stories through elevator shafts and crawl spaces? Good wiring job. Or maybe they were all radio operated, and the heat and flames and explosions didn't set off the explosives prematurely?

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because you believe something that the evidence must be on your side. The majority of construction experts and demolition experts and aviation experts and scholars of all natures who examine the evidence say that the planes brought the towers down, that the "explosions" visible as the buildings collapse are just the debris being crushed and blown out the windows by a thirty story section of building falling onto the rest of the building, and that there is no reason to resort to a "demolitions" theory to explain the collapse. You are the one who has to overcome the burden of evidence. So far, there is little room left for your conclusions. You may be right, who can really ever know anything? But if so, you have a lot proving to do.

[bullimiami]

32. i dont agree with some of your assertions

++WTC was reported as verging on collapse all morning, so it was no surprise when it did.

I was watching with everyone else and I dont recall anyone ever suggesting that the buildings could or would collapse and there was disbelief and incredible surprise when they did.

++There were no visible explosions as the buildings collapsed--video footage clearly shows that the dust clouds--which we saw tons of after the full collapse--began blowing out of the windows AFTER the roofline began to dip--in other words, after the collapse started.

I believe there were visible signs of explosions on the floors below just before the collapse.


++Evidence goes way against any theory that explosives brought anything down. So does common sense.

No. Common sense and scientific sense said they should not have collapsed.

++How would someone wire these buildings above the damaged areas quickly enough to bring it down in an explosion?

It would have had to already been in place. Like building 7.


++Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because you believe something that the evidence must be on your side.

I would suggest you take your own advice.


++The majority of construction experts and demolition experts and aviation experts and scholars of all natures who examine the evidence say that the planes brought the towers down, that the "explosions" visible as the buildings collapse are just the debris being crushed and blown out the windows by a thirty story section of building falling onto the rest of the building, and that there is no reason to resort to a "demolitions" theory to explain the collapse. You are the one who has to overcome the burden of evidence. So far, there is little room left for your conclusions. You may be right, who can really ever know anything? But if so, you have a lot proving to do.

I have to do nothing. There was no majority of experts that thought the building could come down like that beforehand. Afterward there is a lot of speculation, hindsight and agenda involved.

Like you say, I may be right but we will proabaly never know since there were no forensics done and the debris was carried away and steel sold off to be recycled.

[jobycom]

40. Sorry, on your first point, that was a typo

I meant WTC 7. Lost the '7' before I posted. WTC 7 was on the verge of collapse all morning, was what I was saying, since you mentioned it in your first post.

As for the towers, I didn't tune in until the first had collapsed, so I can't swear what anyone was saying before that. But there was a lot of discussion about whether the second tower would collapse. I heard a responder say that it might collapse, too, just before he ran into the building. It's a moment I've never been able to shake, actually, seeing him say that, and then wondering whether he made it.

As for the rest, whatever. You place belief over science and evidence, you ignore experts to believe what you want. Go for it, no skin off my nose.

[petgoat]

42. The experts we ignore fail to express regret over the fact that

the steel that would have told the tale was destroyed.

Fuck 'em. They're Bush Scientists.

[petgoat]

38. If everyone knew they would collapse, why did no one tell 343

FDNY heroes?

You look into the eyes of these 343 men. You go tell their families that
everyone (except them) knew the buildings were going to come down! Next
time, think before you speak!











The rest of your post isn't even worth a response. You never heard of wireless
control? Dr. Van Romero, a demolitions expert, said a few charges involving a
relatively small amount of explosives could have done the job.

[jobycom]

39. What the Hell are you talking about?

How did I say everyone knew the buildings would come down?

But now that you mention it, one of the most tragic memories I have of that morning is watching a reporter briefly interview a fireman or police officer running into the second building after the first had collapsed. I forget the question, but the responder said "This one could go at any minute, too." Then he and his crew ran INTO the building. Shortly after, it collapsed.

So you look them in the eyes and you tell their families that they didn't know the risks they were taking. Those are heroes. They weren't ignorant of the dangers, that's what makes their sacrifice so noble--and tragic. I think before i post, I suggest you start doing the same.

As for the explosives, bull. You say on the one hand that a 200 ton aircraft striking the buildings at 600 mph and exploding into a massive fire ball that engulfed ten floors of each structure could not have brought the building down, but a "relatively small amount of explosives" could have? Yeah. Sure.

Wireless or not, demolitions takes careful placement of explosives, and the wiring of charges even if the detonator is wireless. A ten story section of disrupted charges would screw up that placement.

[petgoat]

41. I'm talking about your claim that "WTC was reported as verging

on collapse all morning, so it was no surprise when it did."

It was absolutely a surprise. Brian Clarke walked down from 84 and saw only a few flames.
FDNY Chief Orio Palmer radioed from 78 talking about "knocking down" some "isolated" fires.

Nobody knew the towers were coming down except Giuliani, and the people who told him, who
have never been identified by the 9/11 Commision or anyone else.

exploding into a massive fire ball that engulfed ten floors of each structure

The massive fireball was OUTSIDE the building and thus had no effect. Think about it.
Fuel tanks at 450mph hit a hardened steel structure. The fuel tanks are shredded, the fuel
keeps going at 400 mph, it breaks through the opposite wall and it erupts in a fireball.
The miracle is that any fuel at all stays in the building!

Wireless or not, demolitions takes careful placement of explosives

Yes. Using the roofs of the elevator cars as movable staging, charges could have been
quite easily placed in the elevator shafts in a few hours.

A ten story section of disrupted charges would screw up that placement.

How's that? You detonate from the top, collapsing debris brings down the towers to the
fire-damaged section, and then it's just boom boom boom boom boom all the way down.

[petgoat]

37. "too many people would have to be involved"

How many does it take, really? The war games paralyzed the air defence.
Nobody can talk about the war games, because they're classified.

How many people do you think were involved?

I count Condi, Myers, Rummy, Cheney; Maltbie and Frasca in the FBI to
shut down investigations, Zelikow in the Commission to queer that.
How many do you need?

[jobycom]

11. One thing that always bothered me was how quickly W

denied that they had any advanced warning. He said almost before explaining anything else, or trying to assure the country that everything was under control. He was in defense mode immediately.

I don't believe they knew 9-11 was coming, or what day it was coming (though I hold a small degree of doubt in the back of mind, based on what these people are capable of). But I think they were trying to get something to happen. They pulled back surveillance of Bin Laden just as he begin threatening us. The summer before 9-11 they had to pull all US ships out of foreign ports because of a warning. I think they wanted something to happen, I think they left the back door unlocked to make it easy to happen, but I think they were stunned with what actually did happen. Like you, I suspect that they were expecting a hijacking at some time, and were planning to use it to justify the war they had been planning in Afghanistan. But Bin Laden hit them harder than they expected.

And Bush jumped on his plane, got drunk (as you can see from the taped message he did from Louisiana that day), and hid from the nation until he sobered up and his handlers were sure they could trust him not to break down in public. Piece of crap. The day America most needed a leader and the best he could do was give us a videotaped message while his cheeks were rosy, his eyes were bloodshot, and his voice was slurred almost beyond comprehendability? Can anyone honestly imagine another president in our history behaving like that, in either party?

I don't like much of what Guiliani has done in his life, but at least on 9-11 he was there when we needed a leader. Bush is a coward.

[Orrex]

12. I have a different reading of that, for what it's worth.

"if we had known that the terrorists were going to hijack the planes AND run them into the buildings we would have done everything in our power to stop them."

Several in the administration have made similarly carefully-crafted statements in the days, weeks, months, and years following 9/11. Rather than a de facto admission of foreknowledge, I think that it reveals the obsessive hyper-legalism of the Bush cabal. A statement of such ludicrous specificity allows a great deal of wiggle room even as it depends on a too-general interpretation by the public.

Consider this hypothetical re-invention of the mindset that produced such a statement:

If we'd known that a young man was going to shoot Reagan from point-blank range with a .32 pistol, of course we'd have done everything in our power to stop him.

Well, where does that leave us? The administration is off the hook if

A. The shooter wasn't young
B. The shooter wasn't a man
C. The shooter tried but failed to shoot Reagan
D. The shooter wasn't at point-blank range
E. The shooter didn't use a pistol
F. The shooter used a pistol of a different caliber

and on and on.

This adminstration is exceedingly skilled at avoiding accountability by carefully vetting all potentially actionable statements through a seive of lawyers before anyone from the public hears them. AG Gonzales, whose employer is not the President but the citizenry, is the absolute worst of the lot in this regard.

Disgusting.

[KurtNYC]

13. Here is what Rupert Murdoch said at the time:

May 16, 2002

[Gato Moteado]

15. you know, i think bush is totally out of the loop.......

....he's just the chimp that they stick out front. cheney probably knew. rumsfeldt too. condy also. but bush just knew he was supposed to read out of some kid's book to a group of 1st graders that morning. the clueless look on his face when andy card told him of the attacks just proves that. he sat around waiting for someone to tell him what to do next.

[sabbat hunter]

35. that headline refers to

the OBL is determined to attack within the US document. something pointed out in fahrenheit 9/11.

[Search Party]

16. k & r!

this is an important thread.

we need to track down the rice/king interview and the boyking's drunk louisiana presser.

this is fair game right now, the time is NOW, we need to jump.

[Gato Moteado]

17. exactamundo, my friend!

if we can get the video footage we should contact olbermann as well!

[NV Whino]

18. I'll make an effort to watch that again.

I've thought from day one that Bush and company knew "something" was going to happen. I do think Bush was stunned about the towers. I believe he thought it would be a simple hijacking and a small loss of life... collateral damage, doncha know. What the rest of the "company" knew is up for speculation.

[Gato Moteado]

19. if you find the video footage, please let us know

nt

[NV Whino]

23. I believe that footage is included

in Fahrenheit 911.

[hpot]

36. Video: 9/11 Press For Truth

I'm surprised no one recommended this video. Everyone here needs to watch it!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=press+for+truth&hl=en

[phiddle]

22. Agree

A friend of mine, not a DUer, put it perfectly in a letter to Leonard Pitts Jr., the Miami Herald columnist, disputing his 9/15 column "Wierd Theories of 9/11 only Distort History" (Note to mods: I copy the letter in its entirety, with her permission, but witholding her name at her request.)

"Dear Leonard Pitts,

Thanks for the column about people who think Bush orchestrated this attack. I gave this idea some thought myself, without ever having read or heard a word about it anywhere, and I came to a somewhat different but just as troubling conclusion.

First why I thought about it. There were three considerations that pushed me in that direction. One is that the biggest beneficiaries of 9/11 were Bush and his gang (more about this below). The second is that the Bush administration has been very evil in well-known and completely proven ways, so they have given me reason to believe that they would stop at nothing* to achieve their goals. And finally, I know they wanted to invade Iraq long before they were elected. This was a neo-con goal for many years preceding the election of Bush, and that information is perfectly public.

Where I came out on this was : no, I don't think Bush and gang orchestrated 9/11. It was completely unnecessary, and would have been very dangerous to them. But what I do believe is that they were intending from the first to invade Iraq, and that part of their plan for doing it was use the next Al-Qaeda attack to provide them an excuse. There had been previous attacks - on the embassy in Uganda, on a warship, on the World Trade Center itself. So it was obvious that there would be more attacks -- all they had to do was wait.

I believe they were looking for an attack that would be much worse than blowing up a warship, and that would be on American soil, because that was what they needed to proceed with their plans. And their plans were to invade Iraq (known in advance), and also to grab total power for the presidency (as we have since learned).

I think they knew there was something brewing, and did nothing about it, because they wanted that attack to happen.

And they got their attack, which they used to drag us into the Iraq war. From their point of view that war is not any kind of mistake at all but a fantastic success. Why? First, it guaranteed that Bush would get re-elected; we never dump presidents in war time. Second, it provided them an opportunity to knock down an entire country and then give their friends billions of dollars for "reconstruction". And for Bushie-boy personally, a chance to play soldiers for real -- what fun!

Never mind that it is a disaster for all the rest of us. Nothing whatever has been accomplished there that helps America, --we have had massive losses of life, money, opportunity and credibility, arguably that war has given a boost to international terrorism and promoted the rise of Iran, and there is no end in sight.

And because the 9/11 attack was on American soil and was so dramatically awful, it has allowed them to use terrorism as an excuse for an all out assault on the Constitution. Arresting an American citizen and holding him indefinitely without charges or access to a lawyer. Warrantless spying. Promoting torture. Along with thousands of other lesser attacks. Always with the excuse of protecting us from terrorists. And always with vicious attacks on anyone who quesitons their actions, so that people are scared of challenging them. And always with the claim that what they are doing is "legal", so that they can tie challenges up in court forever while they do what they want.

So Leonard Pitts, the people who are thinking "Bush did it" are not really whackos. They are people who have seen how his administration benefitted from the attack, how ruthless and evil his gang has been in pursuing its agenda, and how terrible that agenda is. It is quite reasonable to wonder whether he had something to do with an event that benefitted him so hugely. I do think the reality is more like what I stated above. I think you would be doing everyone a favor if you published a column dealing with that speculation. It is far more credible than the "Bush did it" scenario, but just as scary.

Signed xxxxx"

[vickitulsa]

34. I like your friend's letter.

Good for her, for taking the time and putting forth the thoughtful effort to write it, and then actually send it to someone who is trying to skew Americans' thinking on this issue.

Her reasoning makes damn good sense, too -- please tell her I said so! :)

I like the way she took the tone that it's all so totally obvious by now how radically and uninhibitedly evil the entire Bu$h administration is. This is the very thing I think is going to bring the entire country around eventually (well, almost everyone anyhow) -- the way it's becoming no longer an arguable issue but a plain and clear, undeniable FACT that Chimpy and his gang of jackbooted thugs and his backers and masters are doing so many terrible things to our country.

When we can finally cease disputing this central point with others but can simply operate on "common knowledge," and our daily language reflects that accepted basic understanding, then IMO we will have taken a great leap forward.

And when the bulk of those who once supported the Chimperor are finally too ashamed to even let anyone REMIND them that they voted for him or argued in his behalf or his defense, I think we're halfway there.

Wherever "there" is -- because it surely is NOT a place where the nation has been relieved of its greatest threat. Not yet. Not by a long shot.

But I think we should at least acknowledge it when some heartening milestones are reached, and even when we may be approaching them. We need to see that some progress is being made in order to keep our spirits up for the continuing fight.

Adding my K&R to this thread, too, because I'm hoping somebody will be able to find the old video footage -- not only of Condy making her insane comment but evidence of other administration officials committing similar blunders.

[Virginia Dare]

24. I distinctly remember...

at the time of 9/11, I worked with a young lady who had been overseas for a couple of years (the Far East). She was suspicious of all the "we had no clue" arguments because she, and presumably other Americans had received warnings from the State Department about international travel, specifically warning of possible hijackings.

[Search Party]

27. did the 911 commission address

the fact that ashcroft had been warned?

this is a pretty big smoking gun in my book.

now i am firmly in the camp of LTHJHOP

let the hijacking happen on purpose

[The Count]

28. "traditional hijackings" - that what we thought they would be

It's how she justified not notifying the airports...Cuz, who cares about traditional hijackings nowadays?

[Gato Moteado]

30. jeesuzzzzzz.....how do the dirtbags like rush and hannity spin that one?

no matter which way you slice it or dice it, condy, and the entire bushco, appear to either be way too incompetent to be in office or to be guilty of the highest degree of treason.

[El Fuego]

33. VERY interesting.

[DemInDistress]

43. about that 8/6/01' PDB, ii was aired with these 2 paragraphs

on page 2...
"weeks many many dead, very very big uproar, possibly using hijacked commercial jets as suicide weapons to
be crashed into skyscrapers in New York City, Chicago and Washington DC." that was the 3rd paragraph followed
by a 4th and closing paragraph.

Think about that PDB..bush summoned that report in response to the Phoenix Flight Memo where he learned of rumors that arabs were learning to fly commercial jets, it was suspicious to some FBI agents so soon the scumbag bush had his update the infamous PDB.

why would that report just include historical information, osama was a bad man who blew up embassies in Africa
and later the Cole, that's history bush wanted recent developments thus the PDB, remember he scolded the person who delivered it,"you covered you ass not take a walk".

The person who was charged with releasing the PDB to the public on 4/12/04 failed to clear the contents that's why I saw it that day in its 2 page entirety. word for word "weeks many many dead" I had hoped to see
it again late that day on other cable news and when I did those 2 last paragraphs were sanitized,gone, think
how damaging it would have been had that information stayed in.

I don't make things up..

[Search Party]

44. where did you see this draft??????

on television? and you were able to read it???

[DemInDistress]

45. yes SP..it was on or about 4.12.04 soon after BenVineste

challenged that skankoleeza to make it available to the public. It had to be faux cable news because their
always 1st with releases. It was a 2 page brief, the reporter indicated on page 1 historical shit like Osama
is a bad man what with the embassy bombings and the Cole. On page 2 the 3rd column was aired for 30 or more
seconds and words jumped out at me, "weeks many many dead, very very big uproar, possibly using hijacked
commercial jets as suicide weapons to be crashed into skyscrapers in NYC, Chicago and Washington DC" that was
followed by a 4th and closing paragraph.
I had expected to see it again soon on other cable news channels and when I did the PDB was scrubbed of that
damaging information. What was left was bullshit, no real info.

Think about it, in July 2001 rumors circulated that Arabs wanted to learn how to fly commercial jets and bush from his own mouth wanted an update on those rumors. He got it on 8/06/01 and told the man who delivered it
"you covered your ass" now get the hell out of here (paraphrase)

My feeling is when the Whitehouse agreed to release the PDB the idiot who displayed it to the tv didn't realize how damaging those 2 last paragraphs could be, more like incriminating.

Generally I used to run my VCR for the 6 hours but that day I didn't have it on. Now in hindsight its hard to say whether or not it was a good thing to have not recorded it because if I had that on videotape I'd be scared to death or suicided or gitmo'ed,.. Still I remember that day well.