Cafferty's got 3 killer questions lined up for today -- Take a look

[Bozita]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/situation.room/

AIRS: 4-6 p.m. and 7-8 p.m. ET Monday-Friday

Wednesday's shows

Shimon Peres

Israeli special forces push deeper into Lebanon. Wolf sits down with Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres and Lebanese officials. Tune in at 4 at 7 p.m. ET.

Cafferty File


Jack Cafferty sounds off on the stories crossing his radar. Write in to answer Jack's hourly questions, and watch to see if he reads your response.

4 p.m.: What does it mean if the 9/11 commission suspected the Pentagon wasn't telling the whole truth about the day of the attacks?

5 p.m.: A top House Democrat, Rep. John Conyers from Michigan, says the Constitution is in crisis. Do you agree?

7 p.m.: Should Iraqi forces take over all security there by the end of the year?

• Answer Jack's questions now
• Read some of your responses

[me b zola]

1. All three of them great questions and deserving of DU response

Thanks :hi:

[me b zola]

3. Here's my reply to the first question

The fact that the 911 commission suspected that the Pentagon wasn't telling the truth, aka lying, about the events of 911 means that there is nothing that the administration won't lie about and there is nothing that they will be held accountable for.

It also means that the myth that the republicans are the only ones that can keep us safe from terrorism is just that--a myth. Not only did the republican administration not keep us safe on 911, but then they launched us into a series of foreign policy debacles that have made us incredibly less safe--and managed to strip away our civil liberties while doing it. The terrorists never could have inflicted the harm to this nation that the bush* administration has done.

Wake up, America. We're in trouble and we're doing it to ourselves.

[Bozita]

5. Excellent!

I'll be looking for it.

[napi21]

2. I don't know if Jack thinks these up all on his own or not, but

He's the only reason I even watc the Situation Room!

I keep it on in the background and only pay attention when Jack is on ONLY TWICE PER HOUR!

I also watch his show on the weekend.

[Sherman A1]

4. Well, let's see Question #2

The President openly violates the Constitution's 4th Amendment, Congress worries about gay marriage and flag burning, The Supreme Court sits on it's fat backside and does nothing. Yeah, I think there is a Constitutional Crisis and it's spelled R-E-P-U-L-B-I-C-A-N.

[TahitiNut]

6. The Constitution can't be in crisis. If it were,

... the White House would lose half of it's toilet paper.

[yurbud]

7. vote this up. Any time a mainstream reporter ask good questions

we should notice

[yurbud]

9. to Jack on 9/11

It would hard to imagine the Pentagon telling the truth about what happened that day.

F-15s and F-16s can go from brakes off to altitude in as little as a minute, and travel at over 1500 miles per hour. If the plane is dead cold and not on alert, add another ten minutes.

It is possible the first plane could have hit the World Trade Center without being intercepted, but none of the others should have or would have if Donald Rumsfeld hadn't changed the intercept policy that summer to require his permission before the planes were launched (previously, civilian permission was only required to shoot down the plane).

The old policy was essentially common sense and used routinely since the 1970s for hijacking or aircraft in distress. Somehow, decades of policy and training were set aside as those planes flew over the most densely populated part of our country and our capital.

The truth of what happened that day is too ugly for most Americans to even consider, but avoiding it is as dangerous as not believing in con men, burglars, or serial killers. 9/11 is the excuse for all the killing and seizing of oil the Bush administration is doing, and every time they think of another way to violate our civil rights or attack a country that wasn't involved with 9/11, the less likely it looks like people were just asleep at the switch that day.

CHANGING THE RULES

The 1997 procedures provided a clear way for the military to respond to an emergency such as a hijacking:

"4.7.1. Immediate Response.
Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil
authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))."

Rumsfeld went ahead and clouded the waters. The priority in the June 1st, 2001 directive is to place decision making power -- in the specific case of a hijacking -- into the hands of the Secretary of Defense. This is repeated in
multiple paragraphs:

"c. Military Escort Aircraft
(1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD
3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."

This creates the necessity for: 1) making a request to the Secretary of Defense, and 2) receiving approval before military aircraft may respond.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/1628578.php

[hang a left]

8. Mine

Well Jack I think it means that the commission assisted in the cover-up of the events leading up to and on 9-11. They started with a conclusion which is the "Official Conspiracy Theory" and worked backwards. There needs to be a real investigation. One that is lead by uncompromised truth seekers.