| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Charles Farley" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2006 06:41:09 PM |
| Object: |
Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
An interesting video of Democrats trying to have it both ways:
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
.
|
|
| User: "RonB" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 01:18:37 AM |
|
|
"Charles Farley" <CircularErrorZero@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1157758868.983645.313250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
An interesting video of Democrats trying to have it both ways:
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
This is what you get with partisan politics. The lowest common
denominator. Yeah, Bush is a pathetic piece of ***** moron... but so are
them dang Democrats!
Why am I not impressed?
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
08 Sep 2006 11:44:09 PM |
|
|
"Charles Farley" <CircularErrorZero@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157758868.983645.313250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An interesting video of Democrats trying to have it both ways:
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
From that same page:
Paid for by the Republican National Committee
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee
www.GOP.com © 2006 Republican National Committee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chip Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 01:14:39 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:tErMg.2554$%i.1705@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Charles Farley" <CircularErrorZero@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157758868.983645.313250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An interesting video of Democrats trying to have it both ways:
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
From that same page:
Paid for by the Republican National Committee
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee
www.GOP.com © 2006 Republican National Committee
What's your point?
--
---
Chip
Oderint dum metuant
-Lucius Accius
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 02:18:37 AM |
|
|
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983ACB0715EFbandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:tErMg.2554$%i.1705@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Charles Farley" <CircularErrorZero@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157758868.983645.313250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An interesting video of Democrats trying to have it both ways:
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
From that same page:
Paid for by the Republican National Committee
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee
www.GOP.com © 2006 Republican National Committee
What's your point?
Which is it: Playing dense, or really dense?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chip Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 04:50:21 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:h%OMg.2419$xg7.973@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983ACB0715EFbandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:tErMg.2554$%i.1705@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Charles Farley" <CircularErrorZero@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157758868.983645.313250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An interesting video of Democrats trying to have it both ways:
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
From that same page:
Paid for by the Republican National Committee
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee
www.GOP.com © 2006 Republican National Committee
What's your point?
Which is it: Playing dense, or really dense?
Let me guess. You're using an attack the messenger offense rather than
factual refutation, which is not possible in this instance.
--
---
Chip
Oderint dum metuant
-Lucius Accius
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 07:28:37 AM |
|
|
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983A31F285D64bandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:h%OMg.2419$xg7.973@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983ACB0715EFbandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:tErMg.2554$%i.1705@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Charles Farley" <CircularErrorZero@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157758868.983645.313250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An interesting video of Democrats trying to have it both ways:
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
From that same page:
Paid for by the Republican National Committee
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee
www.GOP.com © 2006 Republican National Committee
What's your point?
Which is it: Playing dense, or really dense?
Let me guess. You're using an attack the messenger offense rather than
factual refutation, which is not possible in this instance.
The question you asked has an EXTREMELY OBVIOUS answer.
Are you pretending to be that stupid or are you really that stupid?
I'm leaning towards the latter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chip Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 04:29:47 PM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:VxTMg.4850$rE5.1567@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983A31F285D64bandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:h%OMg.2419$xg7.973@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983ACB0715EFbandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:tErMg.2554$%i.1705@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Charles Farley" <CircularErrorZero@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157758868.983645.313250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An interesting video of Democrats trying to have it both ways:
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
From that same page:
Paid for by the Republican National Committee
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee
www.GOP.com © 2006 Republican National Committee
What's your point?
Which is it: Playing dense, or really dense?
Let me guess. You're using an attack the messenger offense rather than
factual refutation, which is not possible in this instance.
The question you asked has an EXTREMELY OBVIOUS answer.
Are you pretending to be that stupid or are you really that stupid?
I'm leaning towards the latter.
Decisions, decisions. Hmmm, let's see. I know! You are simply obtuse.
--
---
Chip
Oderint dum metuant
-Lucius Accius
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 06:45:00 PM |
|
|
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983AA7D89C9D1bandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:VxTMg.4850$rE5.1567@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983A31F285D64bandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:h%OMg.2419$xg7.973@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983ACB0715EFbandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:tErMg.2554$%i.1705@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Charles Farley" <CircularErrorZero@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157758868.983645.313250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An interesting video of Democrats trying to have it both ways:
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
From that same page:
Paid for by the Republican National Committee
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee
www.GOP.com © 2006 Republican National Committee
What's your point?
Which is it: Playing dense, or really dense?
Let me guess. You're using an attack the messenger offense rather than
factual refutation, which is not possible in this instance.
The question you asked has an EXTREMELY OBVIOUS answer.
Are you pretending to be that stupid or are you really that stupid?
I'm leaning towards the latter.
Decisions, decisions. Hmmm, let's see. I know! You are simply obtuse.
How so? I'm not the one who can't figure out what my point was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chip Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 09:31:54 PM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:0s1Ng.4909$rE5.4108@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983AA7D89C9D1bandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:VxTMg.4850$rE5.1567@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983A31F285D64bandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:h%OMg.2419$xg7.973@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Chip Anderson" <b_anders*NOSPAM*@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Xns983ACB0715EFbandersbellsouthnet@216.77.188.18...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:tErMg.2554$%i.1705@tornado.socal.rr.com:
"Charles Farley" <CircularErrorZero@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157758868.983645.313250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An interesting video of Democrats trying to have it both ways:
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
From that same page:
Paid for by the Republican National Committee
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee
www.GOP.com © 2006 Republican National Committee
What's your point?
Which is it: Playing dense, or really dense?
Let me guess. You're using an attack the messenger offense rather
than factual refutation, which is not possible in this instance.
The question you asked has an EXTREMELY OBVIOUS answer.
Are you pretending to be that stupid or are you really that stupid?
I'm leaning towards the latter.
Decisions, decisions. Hmmm, let's see. I know! You are simply
obtuse.
How so? I'm not the one who can't figure out what my point was.
I thought I had it on my first guess. I suppose you'll have to break out
your clue bat.
--
---
Chip
Oderint dum metuant
-Lucius Accius
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Independent_Voter" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 02:20:26 AM |
|
|
The Republicans have GOP.COM and the democrats have CNN.COM, cBS, nbc,
abc...
dont get too greedy ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 07:28:54 AM |
|
|
"Independent_Voter" <jdptro@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157872826.580427.211010@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
The Republicans have GOP.COM and the democrats have CNN.COM, cBS, nbc,
abc...
Prove it.
dont get too greedy ;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Independent_Voter" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
10 Sep 2006 02:22:20 AM |
|
|
http://www.gop.com/demfacts/ThenNow.aspx
Though Im an independent voter, neither democrat or republican, I must
say that ad was very informative. Thanks for the excellent post. Keep
them coming!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DKat" |
|
| Title: Re: Democrats Lied About Iraq Threat? |
08 Sep 2006 09:11:50 PM |
|
|
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international
terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly,
not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus
anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion.
The
following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton
anti-terrorism bill:
Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports:
$2.2
million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into
counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence
community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive
federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible
bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community
itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held
three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security
Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama
bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the
issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last
three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and
the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media,
which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge
Report
rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and
his
terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media
and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks
actually
broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings,
to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was
contrived
fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative
majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would
attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included
many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September
11,
was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right;
Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats
Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of
the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from
dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was
using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm,
chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill
dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted
patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were
using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty
money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that
Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty
nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal
was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to
destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy"
published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R.
Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and
Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative
Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do
the same.
In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush
administration pulled out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without
the
world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the
world's
financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."
ABC's miniseries skates right over this, and likewise refuses to
address
the myriad ways in which the Bush administration failed completely to
defend
this nation from attack. All the efforts put forth by the Clinton
administration were cast aside when Bush took office, simply because they
wanted nothing to do with the outgoing government. Condoleezza Rice, by her
own admission, did not even bother to look at the massive compendium of
al-Qaeda data compiled by Sandy Berger until the morning of September 11.
After the attacks, virtually every member of the Bush administration
put
forth the talking point that, "No one could have anticipated anyone using
airplanes as bombs." The facts tell a different story.
In 1993, a $150,000 study was undertaken by the Pentagon to investigate
the possibility of airplanes being used as bombs. A draft document of this
was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. In 1994, a disgruntled Federal Express
employee invaded the cockpit of a DC10 with the intention of crashing it
into a company building. Again in 1994, a pilot crashed a small airplane
into a tree on the White House grounds, narrowly missing the building
itself. Also in 1994, an Air France flight was hijacked by members of a
terrorist organization called the Armed Islamic Group, who intended to
crash
the plane into the Eiffel Tower.
The 1993 Pentagon report was followed up in September 1999 by a report
titled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism." This report was
prepared
for the American intelligence community by the Federal Research Division,
an
adjunct of the Library of Congress. The report stated, "Suicide bombers
belonging to Al Qaida's martyrdom battalion could crash-land an aircraft
packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA,
or the White House."
Ramzi Yousef was one of the planners and participants in the first
bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Yousef's right-hand man, Abdul
Hakim Murad, was captured and interrogated in 1995. During that
interrogation, Murad described a detailed plot to hijack airplanes and use
them as weapons of terrorism. The primary plan was to commandeer eleven
commercial planes and blow them up over the Pacific Ocean. The secondary
plan was to hijack several planes, which would be flown into CIA
headquarters, the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower, the White House and
a
variety of other targets.
Ramzi Yousef eluded capture until his final apprehension in Pakistan.
During his 1997 trial, the plot described by Murad resurfaced. FBI agents
testified in the Yousef trial that, "The plan targeted not only the CIA,
but
other U.S. government buildings in Washington, including the Pentagon."
Abdul Hakim Murad described plans to use hijacked commercial airplanes
as weapons in 1995. Ramzi Yousef's trial further exposed the existence of
these plans in 1997. Two reports prepared by the American government, one
from 1993 and another from 1999, further detailed again the existence and
danger of these plots. The Federal Express employee's hijacking attempt in
1994, the attempted airplane attack on the White House in 1994, and the
hijacking of the Air France flight in 1994 by terrorists intending to fly
the plane into the Eiffel Tower provided a glaring underscore to the data.
This data served to underscore the efforts made by the Clinton
administration to combat international terrorism and attacks against the
United States. Unfortunately, the data and the work that inspired it was
not
followed up on.
A mission statement from the internal FBI Strategic Plan, dated 5/8/98,
describes the FBI's Tier One priority as 'counterterrorism.' The FBI, under
the Clinton administration, was making counterterrorism its highest
priority. The official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General Janet
Reno to department heads, dated 4/6/2000, detailed how counterterrorism was
her top priority for the Department of Justice. In the second paragraph,
she
states, "In the near term as well as the future, cybercrime and
counterterrorism are going to be the most challenging threats in the
criminal justice area. Nowhere is the need for an up-to-date human and
technical infrastructure more critical."
Contrast this with the official annual budget goals memo from Attorney
General John Ashcroft, dated 5/10/2001. Out of seven strategic goals
described, not one mentions counterterrorism. An internal draft of the
Department of Justice's plans to revamp the official DoJ Strategic Plan,
dated 8/9/2001, describes Ashcroft's new priorities. The areas Ashcroft
wished to focus on were highlighted in yellow. Specifically highlighted by
Ashcroft were domestic violent crime and drug trafficking prevention. Item
1.3, entitled "Combat terrorist activities by developing maximum
intelligence and investigative capability," was not highlighted.
There is the internal FBI budget request for 2003 to the Department of
Justice, dated late August 2001. This was not the FBI's total budget
request, but was instead restricted only to the areas where the FBI
specifically requested increases over the previous year's budget. In this
request, the FBI specifically asked for, among other things, 54 translators
to transcribe the backlog of intelligence gathered, 248 counterterrorism
agents and support staff, and 200 professional intelligence researchers.
The
FBI had repeatedly stated that it had a serious backlog of intelligence
data
it has gathered, but could not process the data because it did not have the
staff to analyze or translate it into usable information. Again, this was
August 2001.
The official Department of Justice budget request from Attorney General
Ashcroft to OMB Director Mitch Daniels is dated September 10, 2001. This
document specifically highlights only the programs slated for
above-baseline
increases or below-baseline cuts. Ashcroft outlined the programs he was
trying to cut. Specifically, Ashcroft was planning to ignore the FBI's
specific requests for more translators, counterintelligence agents and
researchers. It additionally shows Ashcroft was trying to cut funding for
counterterrorism efforts, grants and other homeland defense programs before
the 9/11 attacks.
Along with these new priorities, which demoted terrorism significantly,
there were the warnings delivered to the Bush administration about
potential
attacks against the United States. Newspapers in Germany, France, Russia
and
London reported in the months before September 11th a blizzard of warnings
delivered to the Bush administration from a number of allies.
The German intelligence service, BND, warned American and Israeli
agencies that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and
use
them as weapons to attack important American targets. Egypt warned of a
similar plot to use airplanes to attack Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa
in June of 2001. This warning was taken so seriously that anti-aircraft
missiles were deployed around Columbus Airport in Italy.
In August of 2001, Russian intelligence services notified the CIA that
25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin
himself
confirmed that this warning was delivered "in the strongest possible
terms,"
specifically regarding threats to airports and government buildings.
In that same month, the Israeli security agency Mossad issued a warning
to both the FBI and the CIA that up to 200 bin Laden followers were
planning
a major assault on America, aimed at vulnerable targets. The Los Angeles
Times later confirmed via unnamed US officials that the Mossad warnings had
been received.
On August 6, 2001, George W. Bush received his Presidential Daily
Briefing. The briefing described active plots to attack the United States
by
Osama bin Laden. The word "hijacking" appeared in that briefing. Bush
reacted to this warning by continuing with his month-long vacation in
Texas.
Richard Clarke, former Director of Counter-Terrorism for the National
Security Council, has worked on the terrorist threat for the Reagan, Bush
Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, amassing a peerless resume in
the field. He became a central figure in the commission investigating the
September 11 attacks. Clarke has laid bare an ugly truth: The
administration
of George W. Bush did not consider terrorism or the threat of al-Qaeda to
be
a priority prior to the attacks.
Clarke, along with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who as a
member of the National Security Council was privy to military strategy
meetings, indicated that the Bush administration was obsessed with an
invasion of Iraq from the day it arrived in Washington. This obsession
continued even after the attacks, despite the fact that the entire
intelligence community flatly declared that Iraq was not involved.
Five years later, the questions surrounding what exactly happened on
September 11, and why they were allowed to happen, remain unsettled. A
recent national poll conducted by Scripps Howard/Ohio University states
that
more than one third of Americans believe that Bush's government either
actively assisted in the 9/11 attacks, or allowed them to happen so as to
create a justification for war in the Middle East.
The New York Post, reporting on this poll, stated, "Widespread
resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be
fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks
on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Seventy percent of people who
give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the
federal government than they used to be."
"Thirty-six percent of respondents overall," continued the Post, "said
it is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' that federal officials either
participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or
took no action to stop them 'because they wanted the United States to go to
war in the Middle East.' 'One out of three sounds high, but that may very
well be right,' said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the
9/11
Commission). His Congressionally-appointed investigation concluded that
federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not
participate
in, the attacks by al-Qaeda five years ago. 'A lot of people I've
encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said. 'Many
say the government planned the whole thing.'"
The passage of time will, in all likelihood, finally expose the truth
behind exactly what happened on September 11, and why. Until the moment of
final revelation comes, however, we are all best served by a systematic
analysis of the facts surrounding that dark day. Efforts such as this ABC
miniseries to use 9/11 as a partisan club should be shunned, and hard data
should be highlighted instead.
Back in 2003, CBS was forced to pull its miniseries "The Reagans,"
after
conservative groups lambasted the network for crossing the line into
advocacy against the Reagan administration. A similar effort should perhaps
be undertaken to compel ABC to pull "The Path to 9/11." At no time should a
conservative producer with an anti-Clinton axe to grind be allowed to use
public airwaves to broadcast a rank distortion of the truth, especially on
the anniversary of the worst day in our history.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling
author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know
and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. His newest book, House of Ill Repute:
Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation, will be
available this winter from PoliPointPress.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
