David Kay says the Washington Post is lying about events in Iraq

Religions > Bible > David Kay says the Washington Post is lying about events in Iraq

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 5

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Mark Fox"
Date:	21 Nov 2003 11:56:07 PM
Object:	David Kay says the Washington Post is lying about events in Iraq

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr11032003.htm
Statement by Dr. David Kay
Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence
A version of this statement appeared in the Washington Post on
Saturday, November 1, 2003.
Taking Exception
A front page article in the Washington Post on October 26th entitled
"Search in Iraq Fails to Find Nuclear Threat: No Evidence Uncovered of
Reconstituted Program" is wildly off the mark. The article is replete
with simple factual errors that could have and should have been
avoided.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG) BEFORE THE
HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE, AND
THE
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
October 2, 2003
We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the
point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do
not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to
find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for
such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis.
Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a
confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed
but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six
principal factors:
From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized
within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and
terror and with deception and denial built into each program;
Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation
related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post
conflict;
Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily
collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD
program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this
looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with
the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;
Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period
and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with
them;
Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation
to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near
impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important
to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for,
in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces
not much larger than a two car garage;
The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our
activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and
overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of
threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on
ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four
staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle
blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own
windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in
Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.
.

User: "Jani"
Title: Re: David Kay says the Washington Post is lying about events in Iraq	22 Nov 2003 01:15:47 AM

"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a258afb5.0311212156.53d94a32@posting.google.com...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY ON THE INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE IRAQ SURVEY GROUP (ISG) BEFORE THE
HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE, AND
THE
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

October 2, 2003

We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the
point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do
not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to
find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for
such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis.

We said they definitely existed and since they're not there, we now have to
keep looking because we'll look bloody stupid if we don't. In the meantime
we can think up lots of excuses why they're not there.

Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a
confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed
but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six
principal factors:

From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized
within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and
terror and with deception and denial built into each program;

But that didn't matter to anyone outside Iraq, since we *knew* they were
there, remember? We just can't find them.

Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation
related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post
conflict;

We knew they were there, but of course once we'd said we knew they were
there, someone would have the bright idea of getting rid of them before we
actually got there to look for them, so why are you complaining that we
can't find them? You didn't expect them to actually be there, did you?

Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily
collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD
program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this
looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with
the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;

We had absolutely *no* idea that looting takes place in these situations.
No, really. And even if we did, we're hoping you're not going to notice that
while we were going "duh - they're looting", the other side managed to be
"systematic and deliberate" about zipping through it all and destroying
exactly which bits they wanted to destroy. Either way, we're still looking
bloody stupid.

Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period
and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with
them;

Well, yeah, so the minute we said they were there, we wouldn't have a
problem when they weren't there, because people cross borders. Hey, we
thought that one up all by ourselves so we wouldn't look quite so stupid
when they weren't there!

Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation
to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near
impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important
to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for,
in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces
not much larger than a two car garage;

OK, but we still knew they were there. They're so tiny that you can't find
or identify even the big ones, but dammit, *we knew they were there!* We're,
like, psychic, you know?

The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our
activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and
overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of
threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on
ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four
staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle
blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own
windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in
Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.

Whether you believe they were there or not, it's your people getting shot
at. So now you have to believe they were there too, otherwise you'll blame
*us* for all of this and then we'll look *terminally* bloody stupid, won't
we?
Jani
.

User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic"
Title: Re: David Kay says the Washington Post is lying about events in Iraq	23 Nov 2003 10:03:49 AM

YOU look like an idiot
"Jani" <jani@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D2Evb.7645$aG4.64721054@news-text.cableinet.net...

"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a258afb5.0311212156.53d94a32@posting.google.com...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

We said they definitely existed and since they're not there, we now have

keep looking because we'll look bloody stupid if we don't. In the meantime
we can think up lots of excuses why they're not there.

But that didn't matter to anyone outside Iraq, since we *knew* they were
there, remember? We just can't find them.

Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation
related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post
conflict;

We had absolutely *no* idea that looting takes place in these situations.
No, really. And even if we did, we're hoping you're not going to notice

that

while we were going "duh - they're looting", the other side managed to be
"systematic and deliberate" about zipping through it all and destroying
exactly which bits they wanted to destroy. Either way, we're still looking
bloody stupid.

Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period
and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with
them;

OK, but we still knew they were there. They're so tiny that you can't find
or identify even the big ones, but dammit, *we knew they were there!*

We're,

like, psychic, you know?

User: "USA"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	24 Nov 2003 09:18:44 AM

Only a real idiot could have failed to notice that Iraq had no WMDs,
Bush knew it, and Bush lied anyway, so he could steal from Iraq.
david.bozzi1@inkblotpoetry.com wrote:

U.S. Destroys Iraq Then Denies Contracts to Rebuild to Iraqi People

IRAQ:
Contracts Leave Local Business Out

Peyman Pejman

U.S. officials have shut Iraqis out of the business of reconstruction
contracts, favouring a few high-profile Iraqi companies they trust and
setting excessively high contract standards that most local companies
cannot meet, say local business leaders.

BAGHDAD, Nov 21 (IPS) - U.S. officials have shut Iraqis out of the
business of reconstruction contracts, many local businessmen say.

U.S. officials and the contractors working for them favour a few
high-profile Iraqi companies they trust, and set excessively high
contract standards that most Iraqi companies cannot meet, they say.

- click full story -
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=21229

The Iraqis know this. Intelligent Americans know this.
The clueless loser, though, will still merely worship Bush.
.

User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	25 Nov 2003 01:18:48 PM

<USA> wrote in message news:tn74sv0l6pjn2rikrmfa05gi24m8uno3o6@4ax.com...

Only a real idiot could have failed to notice that Iraq had no WMDs,
Bush knew it, and Bush lied anyway, so he could steal from Iraq.

This USA traitor doesn't know what he is talking about, he sees conspiracy
theories as 'facts' and pretends that the opinions of others who agree with
his delusions, to also be facts.
And as to his ability to read minds (to know what Bush believe{s}{d} to be
true, or whether or not he intended to deceive) he doesn't have such an
ability, as proven by how oft times he has mis-read my mind, in the past
There is yet to be ANY *solid* *firm* *hard* or *trustworthy* evidence that
ANY theft has taken place (opinions, are NOT evidence)
.

User: "USA"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	26 Nov 2003 05:36:37 PM

Only a real idiot could have failed to notice that Iraq had no WMDs,
Bush knew it, and Bush lied anyway, so he could steal from Iraq.
Only a traitor to the USA could support Bush as he harms America.
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/international/middleeast/23AMBA.html?ex=10
70168400&en=ba8d5bcbe811c228&ei=50

November 23, 2003
Iraq Picks American as Ambassador to U.S.
By SUSAN SACHS

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 22 - An Iraqi-American activist whose foundation has
spent much of the last decade devising visions of democratic rule for Iraq
and lobbying for a war crimes trial of Saddam Hussein, will become the
country's diplomatic representative in Washington, Iraqi political leaders
said Saturday.

Her appointment will be announced in the next few days by the interim
foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, they said.

The activist, Rend Rahim Francke, 54, has directed the Iraq Foundation,
which she helped create in 1991, and is a familiar face in Washington from
her years lobbying policy makers to provide more muscular support for
opponents of Mr. Hussein.

Her new job, she said in an interview here, as a representative of the Iraqi
Governing Council, will be a kind of informal ambassadorship.

She said she would represent the emerging Iraqi authority and speak "for the
nascent Iraqi government."

"It is awkward," she added, "because technically Iraq is still a country
under occupation."

Her appointment reflects the accelerating political developments in Iraq in
the past week after the Bush administration said it would turn over control
of the nation to a provisional government by June.

"Iraqi officials told us that they intend to get in motion the establishment
of sovereign institutions," said Dan Senor, an aide to L. Paul Bremer III,
the American administrator of Iraq and head of the occupation authority.
"Diplomatic relations and re-opening the Iraqi Embassy in Washington were on
the Iraqi Foreign Ministry agenda."

The Iraqi Governing Council appointed by Mr. Bremer - whose number was
reduced to 24 by the assassination of another prominent Iraqi woman, Akila
al-Hashimi - has not had a single personality to represent it, either at
home or abroad, because its presidency rotates every month among an inner
circle of nine people.

"They wanted to personify this increasing sovereignty, independence and
legitimacy, and to make it palpable by the presence of an individual," Ms.
Francke said.

While she was born in Baghdad and spent some of her childhood there, Ms.
Francke has not lived in Iraq full time since the 1970's. But, she said, she
believes that Iraqis who lived under Mr. Hussein's dictatorial rule for
those years can create a democratic state.

"It's true we have a generation of people who knew nothing but this terror
and this silence," she said. "But I think the human spirit is something that
can be resuscitated. It's always there."

The Iraq Foundation represented Ms. Francke's first plunge into political
activism after a life in business and finance.

She was inspired, she said, by the immense anger she felt after the Persian
Gulf war of 1991, when the American-led coalition decided against pursuing
and trying to topple Mr. Hussein. "I can't tell you my anger - anger at the
U.S., anger at the Arab world - and frustration," she said. "To have Iraq
destroyed and the regime preserved was the ultimate tragedy."

Her new role as the voice of an occupied country in the halls of power of
the occupier is an odd one, she acknowledges. "It's important to stress that
Iraq is a state and has been since 1921," she said. "It's an Iraqi state
that temporarily has an abridged sovereignty."

She became a United States citizen in 1987 but held on to her Iraqi
passport, which has long since expired. Is she still an Iraqi citizen? She
said that in her mind the answer was yes but that she also expected that the
Governing Council would adopt resolutions affirming citizenship for the many
cases like hers.

Ms. Francke, whose father is a Shiite Muslim and whose mother is a Sunni,
went to boarding school in England, studied at Cambridge and at the
Sorbonne. She worked as a banker and a currency trader in Lebanon and
Bahrain, as well as London, and said she knew she could not survive in her
homeland.

The rest of her family followed her, moving to England in 1978. The
Iran-Iraq war removed any remaining hesitation about leaving, because the
family included young men of military age who faced being drafted into the
army or losing their passports.

She and her family emigrated to the United States in 1981.

Each time she had to visit an Iraq Embassy to renew her passport or do other
business, she said she felt again the old government's brutality. Once, in
Beirut, an embassy official called her a traitor and the "scum of society,"
she said.

She said she considered moving back to Iraq during a visit with her family
in the mid-1970's but realized it would be fatal. "I told my dad that if I
stayed," she said, "I'll be in jail and you will be too, because I am very
intolerant of authority and I'm very outspoken."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

--

Support of Bush is aiding and abetting the primary enemy of the USA.
.

User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	28 Nov 2003 03:47:37 PM

<USA> wrote in message news:9fdasvc07vjs5ll8t36ionnatnvasq7567@4ax.com...

Only a real idiot could have failed to notice that Iraq had no WMDs,

An even bigger idiot thinks "have not found" means "does not exist"

Bush knew it, and Bush lied anyway, so he could steal from Iraq.

Nice accusations, but as yet you haven't proven to be able to read minds

Only a traitor to the USA could support Bush as he harms America.

Only a traitor can write the posts which you write, or promote the posts
which you propagate
..
.

User: "USA"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	28 Nov 2003 06:38:02 PM

animaux <animaux@sdfklio7sd.com> wrote:

Attacked for telling some home truths

Are we now to support atrocities against the 'scum of the earth' in our moral
campaign against Evil?

By Robert Fisk

26 November 2003: (The Independent) In Iraq, they are just numbers, bloodstains
on a road. But in the little town of Madison in Wisconsin last week, they were
all too real on the front page of the local paper, the Capital Times. Sergeant
Warren Hansen, Specialist Eugene Uhl and Second Lieutenant Jeremy Wolfe of the
101st Airborne Division were all on their way home for the last time.

Hansen's father had died in the military. Uhl would have been 22 at Thanksgiving
but had written home to say he had a "bad feeling". His father had fought in
Vietnam, his grandfather in the Second World War and Korea. Two of the three men
were killed in the Black Hawk helicopter crash over Tikrit just over a week ago.

But of course President Bush, our hero in the "war on terror", won't be
attending their funerals. The man who declined to serve his nation in Vietnam
but has sent 146,000 young Americans into the biggest rat's nest in the Middle
East doesn't do funerals.

Nor do journalists, of course. The American television networks have feebly
accepted the new Pentagon ruling that they can't show the coffins of America's
young men returning from Iraq. The dead may come home but they do so in virtual
secrecy.

Things are changing. At a lecture I gave in Madison last week, there was a roar
of applause from the more than 1,000-strong audience when I suggested that the
Iraq war could yet doom George Bush's election chances next year. A young man in
the audience stood up to say that his brother was in the military in Iraq, that
he had written home to say that the war was a mess, that Americans shouldn't be
dying in Iraq.

After the lecture, he showed me his brother's picture - a tall 82nd Airborne
officer in shades and holding an M-16 - and passed on a message that the soldier
wanted to meet me in Baghdad next month.

But I'd better make sure I don't reveal his name because those in America who
want to keep the people in the dark are still at work.

Take the case of Drew Plummer from North Carolina who enlisted during his last
year in high school, just three months before 11 September 2001. Home on leave,
he joined his father, Lou, at a "bring our troops home" vigil. Lou Plummer is a
former member of the US 2nd Armoured Division whose father, unlike Mr Bush,
served his country in Vietnam. Asked for his opinion on Iraq by an Associated
Press reporter, Drew Plummer replied that "I just don't agree with what we're
doing right now. I don't think our guys should be dying in Iraq. But I'm not a
pacifist. I'll do my part."

But free speech has a price for the military in America these days. The US Navy
charged Drew Plummer with violating Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice: Disloyal Statements. At his official hearing, he was asked if he
"sympathises" with the enemy or was considering "acts of sabotage". He was
convicted and demoted.

Yet still the US press turn their backs on this. How revealing, for example, to
find that the number of seriously wounded soldiers brought home to America from
Iraq is approaching 2,200, many of whom have lost limbs or suffered facial
wounds. In all, there have been nearly 7,000 medical evacuations of soldiers
from Iraq, many with psychological problems.

All this was disclosed by the Pentagon to a group of French diplomats in
Washington. The French press carried the story. Not so the papers of small-town
America, where anyone trying to tell the truth about Iraq will be attacked.

And while the Pentagon is now planning to have 100,000 GIs in Iraq until 2006,
the journalistic heavyweights are stoking the fires of patriotism with a new and
even more chilling propaganda line. One of the most vicious has just been
published in The New York Times. Claiming that Saddam's torturers are attacking
American troops - some of his intelligence men are now working for the occupying
army, but that's another matter - David Brooks writes that "history shows that
Americans are willing to make sacrifices. The real doubts come when we see
ourselves inflicting them. What will happen to the national mood when the news
programmes start broadcasting images of the brutal measures our own troops will
have to adopt? Inevitably there will be atrocities that will cause many
good-hearted people to defect from the cause ... somehow ... the Bush
administration is going to have to remind us again and again that Iraq is the
Battle of Midway in the war on terror ..."

What on earth is one to make of this vile nonsense? Why is The New York Times
providing space for the advocacy of war crimes by US soldiers? I doubt the US
channels will broadcast any images of "brutal measures" - they've already had
the chance to do so and have declined. But atrocities? Are we now to support
atrocities against the "scum of the earth" - Mr Brooks' word for the insurgents
- in our moral campaign against Evil?

Amid such filth, we should perhaps remember the simple courage of Drew Plummer.
And remember, too, the following names: Army Private First Class Rachel Bosveld,
aged 19, Army Specialist Paul Sturino, aged 21, Army Reservist Dan Gabrielson,
aged 40, Army Major Mathew Shram, aged 36, Marine Sergeant Kirk Strasekie, aged
23. They, too, came from Wisconsin. And they, too, died in Iraq.

Copyright: The Independent

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5295.htm

Decent people don't support war crimes: those with consciences reject Bush.
.

User: "bnichols"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	24 Nov 2003 02:15:28 PM

USA wrote in message news:<tn74sv0l6pjn2rikrmfa05gi24m8uno3o6@4ax.com>...

Only a real idiot could have failed to notice that Iraq had no WMDs,
Bush knew it, and Bush lied anyway, so he could steal from Iraq.

david.bozzi1@inkblotpoetry.com wrote:

The Iraqis know this. Intelligent Americans know this.

The clueless loser, though, will still merely worship Bush.

Because it's easier & SO much less trouble than having to
actually *use* the brain God gave folks. }:) Why grow up to
eat solid food when you can have Rash Limbo & Bill O'Spinly
spoon-feed you pablum all your life? <eg>
Bill
.

User: "USA"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	24 Nov 2003 06:32:50 PM

The esteemed

(bnichols) wrote:

USA wrote in message news:<tn74sv0l6pjn2rikrmfa05gi24m8uno3o6@4ax.com>...

Only a real idiot could have failed to notice that Iraq had no WMDs,
Bush knew it, and Bush lied anyway, so he could steal from Iraq.

david.bozzi1@inkblotpoetry.com wrote:

The Iraqis know this. Intelligent Americans know this.

The clueless loser, though, will still merely worship Bush.

It's being drugged by the druggies ...
.

User: "bnichols"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	25 Nov 2003 05:57:19 AM

USA wrote in message news:<vc85sv84oa0853t625tmr00g2s5p9o7vkg@4ax.com>...

The esteemed

(bnichols) wrote:

USA wrote in message news:<tn74sv0l6pjn2rikrmfa05gi24m8uno3o6@4ax.com>...

Only a real idiot could have failed to notice that Iraq had no WMDs,
Bush knew it, and Bush lied anyway, so he could steal from Iraq.

david.bozzi1@inkblotpoetry.com wrote:

The Iraqis know this. Intelligent Americans know this.

The clueless loser, though, will still merely worship Bush.

It's being drugged by the druggies ...

As well as the line of least resistance -- the shadow powers love
people like that because the rank & file of them don't require
much maintenance, & thus they then have more time to devote to
subversion. There's a term for that -- "useful idiots" or
something like that, I forget exactly. <eg>
B
.

User: "USA"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	26 Nov 2003 05:36:37 PM

The esteemed

(bnichols) wrote:

USA wrote in message news:<vc85sv84oa0853t625tmr00g2s5p9o7vkg@4ax.com>...

The esteemed

(bnichols) wrote:

USA wrote in message news:<tn74sv0l6pjn2rikrmfa05gi24m8uno3o6@4ax.com>...

Only a real idiot could have failed to notice that Iraq had no WMDs,
Bush knew it, and Bush lied anyway, so he could steal from Iraq.

david.bozzi1@inkblotpoetry.com wrote:

The Iraqis know this. Intelligent Americans know this.

The clueless loser, though, will still merely worship Bush.

It's being drugged by the druggies ...

That, and, among other things, "convenient pawns" ...
Such people aren't competent to care for themselves.
.

User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	28 Nov 2003 03:48:42 PM

So whens the wedding ? Are you two really engaged ?
<USA> wrote in message news:uddasvs37n67lqlh06v0svj6fe82r500ek@4ax.com...

The esteemed

(bnichols) wrote:

USA wrote in message news:<vc85sv84oa0853t625tmr00g2s5p9o7vkg@4ax.com>...

The esteemed

(bnichols) wrote:

USA wrote in message

news:<tn74sv0l6pjn2rikrmfa05gi24m8uno3o6@4ax.com>...

Only a real idiot could have failed to notice that Iraq had no WMDs,
Bush knew it, and Bush lied anyway, so he could steal from Iraq.

david.bozzi1@inkblotpoetry.com wrote:

U.S. Destroys Iraq Then Denies Contracts to Rebuild to Iraqi People

IRAQ:
Contracts Leave Local Business Out

Peyman Pejman

U.S. officials have shut Iraqis out of the business of

reconstruction

contracts, favouring a few high-profile Iraqi companies they trust

and

setting excessively high contract standards that most local

companies

cannot meet, say local business leaders.

BAGHDAD, Nov 21 (IPS) - U.S. officials have shut Iraqis out of the
business of reconstruction contracts, many local businessmen say.

U.S. officials and the contractors working for them favour a few
high-profile Iraqi companies they trust, and set excessively high
contract standards that most Iraqi companies cannot meet, they say.

- click full story -
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=21229

The Iraqis know this. Intelligent Americans know this.

The clueless loser, though, will still merely worship Bush.

It's being drugged by the druggies ...

That, and, among other things, "convenient pawns" ...

Such people aren't competent to care for themselves.

User: "USA"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	28 Nov 2003 06:38:02 PM

wrote:

911 Victim Ellen Mariani Open Letter To The President Of The United
States

Thursday, 27 November 2003

Mr. Bush,

This ''open letter'' is coming from my heart. I want you to know that
I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and that this is not an
attempt to ''bash the Government''.

You Mr. Bush should be held responsible and liable for any and all
acts that were committed to aid in any "cover up" of the tragic events
of September 11, 2001. As President you have a duty to protect the
American people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to
issue a nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack
on America. We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news
networks.

In the months leading up to the attacks you were repeatedly advised of
a possible attack on American soil. During your daily intelligence
briefings you were given information that had been uncovered that the
very real possibility existed that certain undesirable elements would
use commercial aircraft to destroy certain "target" buildings. You
never warned the American people of this possible threat. Who were you
protecting?

When you took no responsibility towards protecting the general public
from the possibility of attack, you were certainly not upholding the
oath you spoke when you took office. In that oath you pledged to
uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully
aware of the unfolding events yet you chose to continue on to the Emma
E. Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and
"photo op". While our nation was under attack you did not appear to
blink an eye or shed a tear. You continued on as if everything was
"business as usual".

In the days following the attacks all air traffic was grounded and
Americans, including myself, were stranded wherever they had been when
the flight ban was imposed. I was stranded at Midway Airport in
Chicago, unable to continue on to California for my daughter's
wedding. Imagine my surprise when I later found out that during this
"no fly" period a number of people were flown out of the country on a
747 with Arabic lettering on the fuselage. None of these people were
interviewed or questioned by any local, State or Federal agencies. Why
were they allowed to leave and who exactly was on that flight. We know
for a fact that some of the people on the flight were members of (or
related to) the royal family of Saudi Arabia and members of the Bin
Laden family. Were these people allowed to leave because of the
long-standing relationships that your family has with both families?

It is my belief that you intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to
gather public support for a "war on terrorism". These wars, in
Afghanistan and Iraq, have not accomplished what you stated were your
goals. Why have you not captured Osama Bin Laden? Where are Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction? All that has happened is a bill that is
passed before Congress for 87 billion dollars to rebuild what you
ordered blown to bits. As an American who lost a loved one in the "war
on terror" I do pray and support our troops who were sent to
Afghanistan and Iraq by you. These troops have and will continue to
die for your lies. As an American I can make this statement as it
appears that associates of your family may stand to prosper from the
rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Bush the time has come for you to stop your control over us. Stop
blocking the release of certain evidence and documents that were
discovered by the 9/11 Investigation Commission if you have nothing to
hide proving you did not fail to act and prevent the attacks of 9/11.
Your reason for not releasing this material is that it is a matter of
"national security". When in fact I believe that it is your personal
credibility/security that you are concerned with. You do not want the
public to know the full extent of your responsibility and involvement.

After 9/11 the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act were passed. Both
of these allow the government to tap your telephone, search your home,
and seize whatever they feel they need to do on a whim. They can do
this without a judge's review or a warrant. I feel that this is in
direct conflict with our rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill
of Rights.

We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following
questions:

1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored
at your request?

2. Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

3. Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control
records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?

5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers
boarding the doomed flights?

6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be
released?

7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the
offices of the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records
and files be removed? These files were then put on a C130 government
cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they taken and
who ordered it done?

It has been over two years since hundreds of our lost loved ones
"remains" have still yet to be identified and their remains placed in
a landfill at Fresh Kill. We want our heroes brought back and given a
public and proud resting place where we all can pay our respects and
honor them. These innocent people never had a chance as they were
taken from us on that sad September Day.

In the court of public opinion Mr. Bush, your lies are being uncovered
each day. My husband, all of the other victims and their families and
our nation as a whole, has been victimized by your failed leadership
prior to and after 9/11!

I will prove this in a court of law!

Ellen M. Mariani

Real patriots applaud you Ellen M. Mariani, as you are a genuine American
and worthy of our respect and support.
.

User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	01 Dec 2003 10:24:09 AM

<USA> wrote in message news:aaqfsvgadtr8abaief87eflq8hb3ht5mau@4ax.com...

david.bozzi1@inkblotpoetry.com wrote:

So as nothing was "covered up" he is responsible and liable for nothing

As President you have a duty to protect the
American people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to
issue a nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack
on America. We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news
networks.

There was no firm evidence presented to him that anything positively was
going to happen, and what had come in was very vague with no clear targets
"Although no such attack ever took place before, some buildings somewhere
around the world might be hit by hi-jacked civilian aircraft"
I wonder how much attention THAT would of gotten, sounds a bit Jean Dixen to
me

In the months leading up to the attacks you were repeatedly advised of
a possible attack on American soil.

Correction...
"Although no such attack ever took place before, some buildings somewhere on
American soil (which can include USA military bases around the world, as
well as Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Miriandas, Pourto Rico........) might
be hit by hi-jacked civilian aircraft"

During your daily intelligence
briefings you were given information that had been uncovered that the
very real possibility existed that certain undesirable elements would
use commercial aircraft to destroy certain "target" buildings. You
never warned the American people of this possible threat. Who were you
protecting?

I read Tabloid warnings of exactly such types of possibilities, which as
vague as the info was, is where such warnings then belonged
IT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.... and was considered UNBELIEVABLE without MORE
CONCISE INFO

When you took no responsibility towards protecting the general public
from the possibility of attack, you were certainly not upholding the
oath you spoke when you took office. In that oath you pledged to
uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

There was not even remote certianty that such an event was going to take
place

On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully
aware of the unfolding events

Pure crap

yet you chose to continue on to the Emma
E. Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and
"photo op".

He was at that scheduled event, BECAUSE he had NO IDEA of those "unfolding
events" UNTIL the SECOND plane hit, everyone thought an ACCIDENT had occured

While our nation was under attack you did not appear to
blink an eye or shed a tear. You continued on as if everything was
"business as usual".

Yeah if you call going into a befuddled state of horror and shock "business
as usual" heck he couldn't even remember the exact order of events, which
took place at the time, when interviewed later

In the days following the attacks all air traffic was grounded and
Americans, including myself, were stranded wherever they had been when
the flight ban was imposed. I was stranded at Midway Airport in
Chicago, unable to continue on to California for my daughter's
wedding. Imagine my surprise when I later found out that during this
"no fly" period a number of people were flown out of the country on a
747 with Arabic lettering on the fuselage.

Common practice, EVEN the Japanese Ambassadors were escourted out of the
country after Pearl Harbor, I find it a sign of your ignorance that you can
be surprised by such common and traditional practices

None of these people were
interviewed or questioned by any local, State or Federal agencies. Why
were they allowed to leave and who exactly was on that flight. We know
for a fact that some of the people on the flight were members of (or
related to) the royal family of Saudi Arabia and members of the Bin
Laden family. Were these people allowed to leave because of the
long-standing relationships that your family has with both families?

No, but you do need such paranoid thinking if you are going to feed a
conspiracy theory.
It is just political politeness, to let people return home BEFORE a
declaration of war / reprisals for surprise attack

It is my belief that you intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to
gather public support for a "war on terrorism".

I suppose you think the same about Pearl Harbor, many did

These wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, have not accomplished what you

stated were

your goals. Why have you not captured Osama Bin Laden?

He hides like a coward

Where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?

Most likely in Syria

All that has happened is a bill that is
passed before Congress for 87 billion dollars to rebuild what you
ordered blown to bits. As an American who lost a loved one in the "war
on terror" I do pray and support our troops who were sent to
Afghanistan and Iraq by you. These troops have and will continue to
die for your lies.

What lies ? Please, present the evidence of your mind-reading machine

As an American I can make this statement as it
appears that associates of your family may stand to prosper from the
rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.

We all stand to prosper

Mr. Bush the time has come for you to stop your control over us. Stop
blocking the release of certain evidence and documents that were
discovered by the 9/11 Investigation Commission if you have nothing to
hide proving you did not fail to act and prevent the attacks of 9/11.

Wait, election time is around the corner. You can WASTE my money on a
needless investigation, then.
Personally, I already know that TERRORISTS carried out 9-11, I find it
AMAZING that YOU don't already know this !

Your reason for not releasing this material is that it is a matter of
"national security". When in fact I believe that it is your personal
credibility/security that you are concerned with. You do not want the
public to know the full extent of your responsibility and involvement.

Get help

After 9/11 the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act were passed. Both
of these allow the government to tap your telephone, search your home,
and seize whatever they feel they need to do on a whim. They can do
this without a judge's review or a warrant. I feel that this is in
direct conflict with our rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill
of Rights.

Needed while we are in this kind of war, I am sure that when the crises is
over, these rights (which non-terrorist supporters STILL have) will be
returned to us.

We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following
questions:

Sad that aren't very bright

1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored
at your request?

National Security, but of course, you already knew this

2. Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
3. Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control
records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?
5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers
boarding the doomed flights?

Out of the reach of the public, and enemies' hands

6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be
released?

When the War On Terrorism is over / when safe to do so

7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the
offices of the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records
and files be removed? These files were then put on a C130 government
cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they taken and
who ordered it done?

You need not know

It has been over two years since hundreds of our lost loved ones
"remains" have still yet to be identified and their remains placed in
a landfill at Fresh Kill. We want our heroes brought back and given a
public and proud resting place where we all can pay our respects and
honor them. These innocent people never had a chance as they were
taken from us on that sad September Day.
In the court of public opinion Mr. Bush, your lies are being uncovered
each day. My husband, all of the other victims and their families and
our nation as a whole, has been victimized by your failed leadership
prior to and after 9/11!
I will prove this in a court of law!

See you in the news, (maybe)

Ellen M. Mariani

Glenn (Christian Mystic)

Real patriots applaud you Ellen M. Mariani, as you are a genuine American
and worthy of our respect and support.

Patriot = one who loves his / her country and SUPPORTS its AUTHORITY and
interests---Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary-Tenth Edition
.

User: "USA"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	01 Dec 2003 01:35:42 PM

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0346/mondo4.php

Mondo Washington
by James Ridgeway
9-11 Questions Still Circling
Where Was the FAA? Where Was NORAD?
November 12 - 18, 2003

Last week the 9-11 Commission subpoenaed some Pentagon papers and is still
arguing with the White House about the release of other documents,
complaining that panelists have "encountered some serious delays in
obtaining needed documents from the Department of Defense. We are especially
dismayed by problems in the production of the records of activities of NORAD
and certain air force commands on September 11, 2001."

So far the government simply has not answered basic questions, brought not
by politicians but by families of the victims. Mindy Kleinberg, who lost her
husband at the WTC, has pointed out to the commission that NORAD was not
contacted by the FAA until 32 minutes after the loss of contact with Flight
11. And she called it "more baffling still" that fighters weren't scrambled
from the nearest air force bases to intercept the hijacked airliners.
Kleinberg noted that planes of NORAD's North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS)
were actually on maneuvers that morning that should have made them
immediately available. Nevertheless, at 9:41 a.m., one hour and 11 minutes
after NORAD confirmed that the first plane was hijacked, the skies over D.C.
were unprotected and Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Fighter jets, she
pointed out, were still miles away.

"Why," she asked, "was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was
there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible, when
NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our
Northeast airspace?"

--

Mindy Kleinberg is also a patriotic American to be admired for her courage.
david.bozzi1@inkblotpoetry.com wrote:

Real patriots applaud you Ellen M. Mariani, as you are a genuine American
and worthy of our respect and support.
.

User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	02 Dec 2003 11:22:18 AM

Investigation
Civilian airlines were hi-jacked
Mainly civilian targets were targeted
investigation over
Terrorists did it !
WOW ! Lot's of money saved
<USA> wrote in message news:pu5nsv8qge3g5563m4vafh7eptv6qs1vu5@4ax.com...

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

still

arguing with the White House about the release of other documents,
complaining that panelists have "encountered some serious delays in
obtaining needed documents from the Department of Defense. We are

especially

dismayed by problems in the production of the records of activities of

NORAD

and certain air force commands on September 11, 2001."

So far the government simply has not answered basic questions, brought

not

by politicians but by families of the victims. Mindy Kleinberg, who lost

her

husband at the WTC, has pointed out to the commission that NORAD was not
contacted by the FAA until 32 minutes after the loss of contact with

Flight

11. And she called it "more baffling still" that fighters weren't

scrambled

from the nearest air force bases to intercept the hijacked airliners.
Kleinberg noted that planes of NORAD's North East Air Defense Sector

(NEADS)

were actually on maneuvers that morning that should have made them
immediately available. Nevertheless, at 9:41 a.m., one hour and 11

minutes

after NORAD confirmed that the first plane was hijacked, the skies over

D.C.

were unprotected and Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Fighter jets,

she

pointed out, were still miles away.

"Why," she asked, "was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was
there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible,

when

NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our
Northeast airspace?"

--

Mindy Kleinberg is also a patriotic American to be admired for her

courage.

david.bozzi1@inkblotpoetry.com wrote:

Real patriots applaud you Ellen M. Mariani, as you are a genuine American
and worthy of our respect and support.

User: "Mark Fox"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	10 Dec 2003 10:40:54 PM

"Glenn $Christian Mystic$" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote

Investigation
Civilian airlines were hi-jacked
Mainly civilian targets were targeted

investigation over

Terrorists did it !

WOW ! Lot's of money saved

from Aviation Week & Space Technology,
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst.jsp?view=story&id=news/aw
090971.xml
ANDREWS AFB, MD. -- With Pentagon in flames and hijacked aircraft
threatening Washington, White House scrambled fighters with little or no
armament.
Within minutes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept.
11, Air National Guard F-16s took off from here in response to a plea from
the White House to "Get in the air now!" Those fighters were flown by three
pilots who had decided, on their own, to ram a hijacked airliner and force
it to crash, if necessary. Such action almost certainly would have been
fatal for them, but could have prevented another terrorism catastrophe in
Washington.
One of those F-16s launched with no armament--no missiles and no usable
ammunition in its 20-mm. gun. The other two "Vipers" only had a full load of
20-mm. "ball" or training rounds, not the high-explosive incendiary (HEI)
bullets required for combat, and no air-to-air missiles.
The Andrews-based 121st Fighter Sqdn. was not standing alert on Sept. 11,
because the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) unit was not
assigned to the North American Aerospace Defense Command air defense force.
Norad had already scrambled three F-16s from their alert base at Langley
AFB, Va., but they were about 12 min. from Washington when the Pentagon was
struck at 9:37 a.m. (AW&ST June 3, p. 48).
The 121st squadron's day had started normally. Three F-16s were flying an
air-to-ground training mission on a range in North Carolina, 180 naut. mi.
away. At Andrews, several officers were in a scheduling meeting when they
received word that the World Trade Center had been hit by an aircraft.
Minutes later, after United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the second WTC
tower, a squadron pilot called a friend in the Secret Service "to see what
was going on. He was told some bad things were happening. At that time, we
weren't thinking about defending anything. Our primary concern was what
would happen to the air traffic system," said Lt. Col. Marc H. (Sass)
Sasseville, the current 121st FS commander. On Sept. 11, he was the director
of operations and air operations officer--the acting operations group
commander under the 113th Wing.
Soon thereafter, the Secret Service called back, asking whether the squadron
could get fighters airborne. The unit's maintenance section was notified to
get several F-16s armed and ready to fly. Anticipating such an order, Col.
Don C. Mozley, the 113th Logistics Group commander, had already ordered his
weapons officer to "break out the AIM-9s and start building them up." The
missiles had to be transported from a bunker on the other side of the base,
which would take a while.
"After the Pentagon was hit, we were told there were more [airliners]
coming. Not 'might be'; they were coming," Mozley recalled.
Sasseville grabbed three F-16 pilots and gave them a curt briefing: "I have
no idea what's going on, but we're flying. Here's our frequency. We'll split
up the area as we have to. Just defend as required. We'll talk about the
rest in the air." All four grabbed their helmets, g-suits and parachute
harnesses, and headed for the operations desk to get aircraft assignments.
Another call from the Secret Service commanded, "Get in the air now!" Almost
simultaneously, a call from someone else in the White House declared the
Washington area "a free-fire zone. That meant we were given authority to use
force, if the situation required it, in defense of the nation's capital, its
property and people," Sasseville said.
He and his wingman, Lucky, sprinted to the flight line and climbed into
waiting F-16s armed only with "hot" guns and 511 rounds of
"TP"--nonexplosive training rounds. "They had two airplanes ready to go, and
were putting missiles on Nos. 3 and 4. Maintenance wanted us to take the
ones with missiles, but we didn't have time to wait on those," Sasseville
said. Maj. Dan (Raisin) Caine and Capt. Brandon (Igor) Rasmussen climbed
into the jets being armed with AIM-9s, knowing they would take off about 10
min. behind Sasseville and Lucky.
"We had two air-to-air birds on the ramp . . . that already had ammo in
them. We launched those first two with only hot guns," said CMSgt. Roy Dale
(Crank) Belknap, the 113th Wing production superintendent. "By then, we had
missiles rolling up, so we loaded those other two airplanes while the pilots
were sitting in the cockpit."
Inside, at the operations desk, Lt. Cols. Phil (Dog) Thompson and Steve
(Festus) Chase were fielding a flood of calls from the Secret Service and
the FAA's two area air traffic control facilities--Washington Center and
Washington Approach Control. Thompson is chief of safety for the 113th Wing,
and Chase is now commander of the new Air Sovereignty Detachment here. By
then, Brig. Gen. David F. Wherley, Jr., the 113th Wing commander, was
on-site, trying to determine whether the unit had authorization to launch
fighters.
"By this time, [commercial] airplanes were landing, but there were still
several unidentified ones flying. One was in the northwest [area], basically
coming down the [Potomac] River," Thompson said. Later, they would learn
that the FAA and Norad's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) were tracking
the hijacked United Flight 93, and feared it was coming toward Washington.
Thanks to intervention by passengers, the aircraft ultimately crashed in
Pennsylvania.
Maj. Billy Hutchison and his wingmen had just landed after being recalled
from a training mission in North Carolina. When Hutchison checked in via
radio, Thompson told him to take off immediately.
"Billy had about 2,400 lb. of gas; the other two [F-16s] were too light,"
Thompson said. "I told Billy to take off, but don't use afterburner to save
gas. He took off with nothing--no weapons. I told him to 'do exactly what
ATC asks you to do.' Primarily, he was to go ID [identify] that unknown
[aircraft] that everybody was so excited about. He blasted off and flew a
standard departure route, which took him over the Pentagon."
According to now-official accounts, an armed Norad-alert F-16 from Langley
AFB, flown by Maj. Dean Eckmann of the 119th Fighter Wing Alert Detachment
1, was the first defender to overfly the Pentagon. At the time, Hutchison
and his fellow "Capital Guardians"--as the 121st FS is known--were unaware
that three other fighters were over the city.
MINUTES LATER, Sasseville and Lucky were in the air, roughly 6 min. after
they had reached their F-16s. "I was still turning things on after I got
airborne. By that time, the [Norad alert] F-16s from Langley were
overhead--but I didn't know they were there," Sasseville recalled. "We all
realized we were looking for an airliner--a big airplane. That was [United]
Flight 93; the track looked like it was headed toward D.C. at that time."
The DCANG was not in the Norad or NEADS communication and command loops, so
its pilots weren't on the same frequencies as Norad air defense fighters.
The Andrews-based F-16s were launched by the Secret Service and someone in
the White House command center, not Norad. At the time, there was no
standing agreement between the Secret Service and the 113th Wing for the
latter to provide fighters in response to an attack on Washington.
Hutchison made two loops up the Potomac, reversing course near Georgetown
and the Pentagon, flying at 500-1,000 ft. AGL. Sasseville and Lucky were at
5,000-6,000 ft., "because I didn't want to get too low for a good radar
angle, and not too high, so we could get somewhere fast," Sasseville said.
He later conceded he was "making things up on the fly." Obviously, there was
no precedent to draw upon. All the pilots were relying on their training and
ability to think under pressure.
Hutchison was probably airborne shortly after the alert F-16s from Langley
arrived over Washington, although 121st FS pilots admit their
timeline-recall "is fuzzy." But it's clear that Hutchison, Sasseville and
Lucky knew their options were limited for bringing down a hijacked airliner
headed for an undetermined target in the capital city. Although reluctant to
talk about it, all three acknowledge they were prepared to ram a
terrorist-flown aircraft, if necessary. Indeed, Hutchison--who might have
been the first to encounter Flight 93 if it had, indeed, been flying low and
fast down the Potomac--had no other choice.
Sasseville and Lucky each had 511 rounds of ammo, but that only provided
roughly a 5-sec. burst of the 20-mm. gun. And where should they shoot to
ensure a hijacked aircraft would be stopped? Sasseville planned to fire from
behind and "try to saw off one wing. I needed to disable it as soon as
possible--immediately interrupt its aerodynamics and bring it down."
He admits there was no assurance that a 5-sec. burst of lead slugs could
slice an air transport's wing off, though. His alternative was "to hit
it--cut the wing off with my wing. If I played it right, I'd be able to bail
out. One hand on the stick and one hand on the ejection handle, trying to
ram my airplane into the aft side of the [airliner's] wing," he said. "And
do it skillfully enough to save the pink body . . . but understanding that
it might not go as planned. It was a tough nut; we had no other ordnance."
Still unaware that the 119th FW alert F-16s were overhead, patrolling at a
higher altitude, Sasseville initially split the airspace into four sectors.
He swept the northwest area of Washington--where the hijacked United Flight
93 was expected to be--and had Lucky guard the northeast area.
Approximately 10 min. after Sasseville and Lucky took off, Caine and
Rasmussen launched, the first Andrews-based F-16s to carry both hot guns and
live AIM-9 missiles. They worked the city's southern sectors. Soon, F-16s
from Richmond, Va., and Atlantic City, N.J., as well as F-15s from Langley
AFB, were arriving. The air picture was confused, at best, and radio
frequencies were alive with chatter.
"The FAA controllers were doing their best to get us information [about
unidentified aircraft], but we were used to working with AWACS and their
weapons directors and controllers," Rasmussen said. Eventually, Washington
Reagan National Airport was designated "Bullseye," and fighters were given
range and bearing to targets from there.
Possibly the highest ranking pilot in the area, Sasseville "essentially
declared myself the CAP [combat air patrol] commander and set up
deconfliction altitudes so we didn't run into each other. There really
wasn't time for niceties." For the rest of the day, a dozen or so fighters
rotated in and out of the region, running intercepts on myriad helicopters
and light aircraft.
"THEY WERE SNAPPING to targets everywhere," Thompson said. "A lot of light
aircraft fly under the [controlled] airspace here, and they had no idea what
was going on. What really scared us was Washington Approach broadcasting,
'Anyone flying within 25 mi. of the Washington Tacan is authorized to be
shot down.' We kind of winced at that, because there are plenty of hard
reasons to not shoot somebody down. We were really in an ID posture--and
trying to really be careful."
A miracle of the post-attack hours on Sept. 11 was that no aircraft was shot
down accidentally, a credit to the training and discipline of U.S. fighter
crews. That fact is even more impressive when one considers many of those
pilots had little or no experience with air defense techniques and
protocols.
"We really didn't know the intricacies of Norad's mission--how it works,"
Thompson explained. "We've never been an air defense unit. We practice
scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot
of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that
expertise, but it worked out fine. For the first three days, everybody
seemed to be reasonably happy with our orchestrating the D.C. CAP. By
day-four, we'd pretty much turned into a national asset" as Norad assumed
control of CAPs nationwide.
On that first day, many of the pilots flying CAP over Washington, New York
and other U.S. cities were faced with the very real possibility of having to
shoot down or ram their fighter into an air transport filled with innocent
passengers.
"I was asking myself, 'Is this when I have to make the million-dollar
decision on my own?' But with smoke billowing out of the Pentagon . . . ,"
Rasmussen said.
"That's what we get paid to do, though. When young guys sign up, they may
not see that the 'guts and glory' of fighter-flying may cost you your life.
That day brought everything into focus."
In the afternoon, Sasseville and Lucky were flying their second mission of
the day--armed with AIM-9 missiles now--when they were told to contact an
AWACS aircraft in the area and "expect special tasking." They were directed
to fly a 280-deg. heading for 140 naut. mi.--almost due west of Washington.
Unable to communicate by secure or encrypted means, the AWACS controller
lowered his voice and told Sasseville via radio they were going to "escort
Air Force One," President Bush's aircraft.
Two Langley F-15s offered to go along, and Sasseville concurred. Soon, an
AWACS controller reported a fast-moving, unidentified aircraft southwest of
Air Force One, approximately 60 naut. mi. away, but on a "cutoff vector" to
the President's Boeing 747. It was above 40,000 ft. and the 747 was "in the
20,000-ft. range," but Sasseville sent the F-15s to intercept the unknown
aircraft. It was a Learjet that hadn't yet landed after aircraft nationwide
had been ordered out of the air.
Sasseville and the two F-15s later joined on Air Force One, while Lucky
positioned her F-16 about 10 naut. mi. in front of the 747. With the SADL
data link system, she was able to monitor her location relative to
Sasseville's SADL-equipped F-16 positioned on Air Force One's left wing.
Another flight of F-16s from Ellington AFB, Tex., were about 5 mi. in trail.
They had escorted the President from Offutt AFB, Neb., according to 121st FS
officers.
Why the Washington-based F-16s were sent to shadow the President's aircraft
back to Andrews AFB has not been disclosed. Apparently, someone in the Norad
or Secret Service command loop had received information about a potential
threat to the 747, prompting a request for additional armed escorts.
Surrounded by fighters, Air Force One descended rapidly toward its home
base. Lucky made a clearing pass over the airfield, pulled up, circled back
and joined on Sasseville's wing. All of the fighters remained with the 747
until the latter landed, then climbed and established a CAP over Andrews.
Despite being short of aircrews the next few days, the 121st flew
continuously for about 63 hr., maintaining protective CAPs over Washington.
They were aided by fighters from other ANG, Reserve and active-duty units,
as well.
"We were generating airplanes faster than they could put 'em up," remarked
Belknap. "And we still are."
.

User: "USA"
Title: Re: Bush is lying about events in Iraq among so many other things	13 Dec 2003 11:19:29 AM

"...Air Defenses Stood Down on 9-11..."
http://www.davidcogswell.com/Political/StoodDown.html
It was an inside job, as any competent investigator already sees.
.