Make your own free website on Tripod.com
This Is Not A Conspiracy Theory

Find Truth

Home
Paul Craig Roberts: Real-time live-feed didn't happen
Mike Rogers: Conspiracy Theorists Same No OBL Photo Released GWB had something to do with 9/11
Paul Craig Roberts: Osama bin Ladens Useful Death
Paul Craig Roberts: Osama Bin Laden Second Death
Classified Document Obscured in Real-Time bin Laden Kill Watch Photo
28 October 2011
A Scanner Darkly
Details
Clinton Culpable
The Order
Analysis The Shoot-Down Order
Fiction Scenarios
Nothing... would have changed the course of history
Alive 9/11 hijackers and BBC News
Poll Find
Video
North American Union
9/11 Bush not really the President
End of Serenity Photo
TWA Flight 800
Find Truth
Sites Skewed Time
Hoax No Planes
Bill Clinton
A republic, if you can keep it
Bush History
Why No Footage
George W. Bush Mock War Crimes Trial
Documentaries
Flights and Passengers
Balance: Questioning Conspiracy Theories
Net the Truth Online (after 9/11)
WTC identifications
Visas and IDs
911 Commission
Net Truth
Beware wrong time
only known footage 1st plane hit
Will 9/11 commission ask
In & Out of Focus
Timeline Off
Who did what when
Timetable G.W. Bush 911
This is Not A Conspiracy Theory
Common Sense
Shuttle Lost
Bush Morning
Bush at School
Bush: Dawdler in Chief
Bush Pilot Error
Bush Remains in Second Grade Classroom
Bush in Second Grade Classroom
Contact Us
Resources
Research Links Bush Reading
Bush Early Timetable

9/11 Commixxion Don't say anything Rudi May 22, 04
 
Here is where I will tackle the absolute negligence of the 9/11 Commixxion.  Can you believe the members put Rudi under oath, in a public setting, yet, members basically did not ask the former mayor of New York anything of any substance.

For instance, the panel members did not ask Mr. G... exactly when did President George W. Bush contact you and/or when were you able to speak directly to the president on the morning of Sept.  11, 2001? 

Were you aware that President George W. Bush drafted emergency funding for New York after the first airplane crash and prior to the second airplane crash?

If you were made aware of that, what was the amount of emergency funding of the draft and what was the amount of funding subsequently?

Rudi must have been told not to say anything, yet, like President George Bush was told the morning of September 11, 2001.

Saddam couldn't fit through that hole, no way Dec 15, 03
 
Saddam is caught. foxnews is showing the hideout. a correspondent is shown going into the opening of the hole then wiggling back up and out. He said the hole was 6 feet by 6 feet. It looked to me like the hole got narrower on the way down.
 
Now how on earth did a big guy like Saddam fit in that hole. The hole is also slanted, I can imagine a thin guy slipping through, but really, not Saddam. Even though the images of Saddam show he lost weight, did he loose that much in his big fat head and rear end?

I mean come on, look at the huge head on Saddam on this cover of 1990 Time Magazinecover. As an aside, Fox n Friends reported this morning at about 8:30 a.m. that the scheduled cover for the mag was changed from one featuring Jesus to the image of Hussein. So don't we all wonder when the actual news of the capture was known, or leaked, to reporters and correspondents?

What American citizens have to wonder about also is the idea that Saddam will be tried in Iraq. Why don't we bring him over to the United States and charge him with an attempt to assassinate a United States president, in addition to plotting terrorism, and any number of other charges, according to our law of the land?

What are we so afraid of? He might testify that he was paid by the CIA at one point in time, or that he was supported by the United States way back in the early '80s?

How gullible is the American public? Pretty gullible.

Don't forget that Wesley Clark is testifying at the Hague.

Wesley Clark Testifies at Milosevic War Crimes TrialVOA News
15 Dec 2003

General Clark was commander of NATO during the alliance's 1999 air campaign against Yugoslavia during Belgrade's crackdown on Kosovo Albanian separatists. He will testify behind closed doors for two days.

Editorial

Clark was on CNN or Meet the Press and wherever else yesterday after the news broke that Saddam was caught. Here is a man who knows all about "bad" guys. But would he rather fight the bad guys under NATO, or the United Nations than under our own law of the land, by the way, called the United States Constitution?

So now just how mesmerized are Americans?

Should Clark become president, what mistakes will he make and will we hear about them?

Gen. Wesley Clark to Testify at Milosevic Trial
Sunday, Nov. 16, 2003
Reuters 2003

Excerpt
Clark said he made a mistake in a 1994 meeting with Bosnian Serb Gen. Ratko Mladic, posing for pictures with him and accepting a bottle of brandy and a pistol.

Clark told NBC he was never told not to meet with Mladic, who is accused of slaughtering hundreds of civilians in pursuit of ethnic cleansing. He said the meeting was part of an effort to get both sides of the story in the Balkan conflict. At the time, Mladic had not been indicted as a war criminal.

"I thought it was very important that I be able to talk to the general that, if he didn't comply, we might have to fight some day," Clark said. "I should not have accepted the gifts."

member CFR? See for yourself.

Roster 2001. By the way, Diane Feinstein recently became a CFR member.

Name index for Council on Foreign Relations. Annual Report. 2001

http://www.namebase.org/xchu/Wesley-K-_28gen_29-Clark.html

Gen. Wesley Clark

Interviews Clark: http://www.wamu.org/dr/2003/drarc_030721.html

Keep tracking:

My research shows on September 11, 2001 George W. Bush remained seated in the Florida Emma E. Booker Elementary School's second-grade classroom for at least 6 minutes, and thus, did not immediately take action when he was informed that America was under attack.

There are a lot of questions the 9/11 Commission needs to ask about those briefings Bush had in the weeks before 9/11.

That doesn't mean that Clark or any of the Democrats are any better as far as leading this country in any way.

In fact, the candidate who would be the best for the United States would be one who would immediately sign an executive order to eliminate our participation in all foreign countries business, and would get us out of the United Nations.

Was Saddam a threat to the United States? Of course, there is historical evidence that he was such a threat. So too are many others who are permitted to continue to terrorize their own people the way Saddam undoubtedly did. Do we need to declare war on them. Absolutely, when they directly attack the United States of America.

Remember, the American people still do not know who exactly is responsible for the travesty of September 11, 2001. We don't know because reportedly, according to an Insight Magazine piece, at least six of the initial identified 19 terrorists - had fake ids which later turned out to be the identities of men who are alive.

Until the Bush Administration explains how men who are alive are the same ones who were identified as those who perished on 9/11, there will always and forever be doubt about the official explanation of who is responsible for 9/11.

We hope Weldon continues on the path to find truth, no matter what the truth shows.  We are skeptical, however, that Weldon made the statement (concerning Jones video about 9/11)  attributed to him in this transcript:
 
Excerpt:
 
Dave Slesinger: Congressman, that was my question, I, wanna give out, anybody who wants this, this is a speech by a physics professor at BYU, Steven Jones.

Rep. Weldon: Yeah.

Dave Slesinger: It's the hottest thing happening on the 9/11 issue. In his speech, he praises Congressman Weldon, he's a conservative Republican [or was], he praises Reagan, he quotes St. Paul. I think I have [DVD copies] enough for everybody. Just ask me.

Rep. Weldon: It'll open your eyes, because his allegations are pretty strong.
 
 
What is not clear is what are the "allegations" which are "pretty strong."  Is Weldon merely going along, not knowing what Jones allegations refer to, assuming possibly that the allegations concern Able Danger, the topic under discussion?  do we know whether Weldon actually viewed the Jones video?
 
 

Reference to above material:
 

A Republican congressman (Curt Weldon, PA 7th) has publicly praised an anti-Bush video. And not just any anti-Bush video, but the one by BYU Professor Steven E. Jones which accuses the Bush administration of deliberately allowing 9/11 to happen and placing explosives in the three tallest World Trade Center buildings to make sure that they would be totally destroyed on 9/11. Unbelievable? Just have a look here:

republican.meetup.com/92/boards/...

The anti-Bush video can be seen here:
www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-st...

 

Feb 8, 2004
President Bush answers Russert's questions

Tim Russert fails to ask the President a really direct question. He immediately asks a handful of general ones related to Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction, but nothing that requires a really direct answer.

PB, really - in my opinion, does answer the questions posed. He answers in pretty much the way any president would answer - non-directly.

Truthfully though, when confronted with a question about whether or not you made the "right" decision about "war" what is a president going to answer - sure, the so-and-suches are correct in their criticisms - I should have let Saddam Hussein lie to the United Nations some more and I shouldn't have used the force I did on the country of Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

The problem with the interview: Russert fell for the same ploy as most of the rest of the so-called media. Keep the attention on the current drama raised mostly by liberals who want to be elected to the highest office in the land. Forget about, all about, the one major historical event which propeled George W. Bush to proclaim a war on terror in the first place. Remember, that declaration to win the war on terror occurred before the War on Iraq.

What is that event? The use of airplanes as weapons of mass destruction on our own soil. Even more particularly, the use of "hijacked" airplanes - the hijacking of commercial airplanes, reportedly as they were flying overhead in the United States. How did that happen? Where was the FAA when the airlines were receiving calls from airline personnel who were aboard these planes?

More importantly, where was the president when he learned that airplanes had reportedly been "hijacked?"

(You know the answer if you've read This is not a Conspiracy Theory.) Since the War on Iraq was a "pre-emptive" war, and it was a war in response to the events of September 11, 2001, there should have been a series of questions about what the president knew before 9/11.

Russert could have asked the following:

What absolute iron-clad evidence-intelligence was given to you that Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction?

Were you given real-time satellite photographs, for instance, or dated satellite images and when were those images verified and how?

Now, Mr. President, following up on your answers. Let's backtrack to the date of September 11, 2001. The premise that we, the United States, are engaged in a war on terrorism, began with that tragic day. Mr. President, before the time of 9:00 a.m. and before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School were you told that airplanes had been hijacked? I just want to know specifically when you were apprised that one airplane or more than one airplane had reportedly been hijacked?

But of course, Russert doesn't ask any of those questions.

Russert does ask something about the 9/11 Commission, he asks whether the president will "testify" before the 9/11 Commission.

However, the president says exactly what any president would say, "perhaps."

Russert does continue to expand on the focus of the interview and states the theory is the intelligence you had was ambiguous.

How would he ever be able to know that.

In fact, before Bush acted on any intelligence he was given, Congress acted to give the power to Bush to make a decision on all of their behalves, and ours.

Now Congress can't claim it didn't have the same information as the President. They gave up the right to criticize Bush's use of force when passed the Iraq Resolution.

Of course, Bush has to be held accountable - for something - but not for making the determination to use force when that determination was made based on military intelligence.

Was the war on Iraq a war of choice, or a war of necessity.

There was no choice, when I looked at the intelligence we had, that there was no choice, the man was a threat.

Oh well, read the transcript over at MSNBC...Transcript for Feb. 8th Guest: President George W. Bush

Dean is on CNN with Wolf Blitzer - yeah, right Dean, we weren't told why we were going to war? Were you listening? The Congress itself in the way of the Senate Intelligence Committee, obtained, information from CIA, FBI, etc. After receiving this information and assessing the information, surely they reviewed the information, the entire Congress voted on the proposal to give Bush the authority to do whatever Bush deemed was necessary on the question of Iraq's dictator. Bush was given intelligence that enabled him to determine at that time that there were weapons of mass destruction.

Obviously, that information would have been the same information no matter WHO WAS IN OFFICE, that is, if Al Gore had become president, and if 9/11 had happened, Al Gore would have been given the same exact intelligence Bush was given.

Not only that, a Gore president would have been privy to the same intelligence during the Clinton Administration and guess what, the Clinton Administration believed Hussein had WMD. People counter, but Clinton didn't go to war because of that. Well, how do these people address this: On Dec. 16, 1998, then-President Bill Clinton ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq."

Hmm, guess if the bombing doesn't last longer than a few hours, it isn't war.

Clinton bombed Iraq. Even though Clinton did send out the bombers to bomb Iraq, that wasn't considered a "war." Right, bomb a country, pre-emptively, that's not a war.

The same thing is only a war when the word "war" is used.


Legitimate criticism of the president is welcome, partisan motivation for the criticism is unwelcome.

Black Caucus Fought Bush, Backed Clinton on Iraq Resolutions Saturday, Oct. 19, 2002

Saturday, Oct. 19, 2002 Black Caucus Fought Bush, Backed Clinton on Iraq Resolutions Michael L. Betsch, CNSNews.com

On Dec. 16, 1998, then-President Bill Clinton ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.
 
 
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/9/111247.shtml

NEWSFLASH On FoxNews, Monday, Feb. 9, 2004, guests Vin Weber, with Empower America, and former U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini, Democrat. DeConcini, during the course of discussing Bush's interview with Russert says that Clinton manipulated intelligence when he bombed Iraq and when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Now let me get this straight, neither Bush nor Clinton were given any intelligence which reflected that weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq? Both of these presidents just made this up as an excuse to bomb Iraq?

What are these people drinking?

Obviously, the entire world community of leaders believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Including Bill Clinton. Where was Al Gore?

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.


Wednesday, December 16, 1998 Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike Cable News Network
 
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Was Senator DeConcini in office when Clinton bombed Iraq? You bet!

Track him down... he's everywhere.

More finds...

President Bill Clinton had the opportunity to stop, catch, or kill bin Laden more than twelve times during his presidency, a new book set for release this week claims. And on at least two occasions through Drones and Global Positioning Systems the Clinton Administration knew exactly where bin Laden was -- and refused to take him out well after knowing he was as a national security threat.
 
 

Saddam is caught. foxnews is showing the hideout. a correspondent is shown going into the opening of the hole then wiggling back up and out. He said the hole was 6 feet by 6 feet. It looked to me like the hole got narrower on the way down. Now how on earth did a big guy like Saddam fit in that hole. The hole is also slanted, I can imagine a thin guy slipping through, but really, not Saddam. Even though the images of Saddam show he lost weight, did he loose that much in his big fat head and rear end?

I mean come on, look at the huge head on Saddam on this cover of 1990 Time Magazinecover. As an aside, Fox n Friends reported this morning at about 8:30 a.m. that the scheduled cover for the mag was changed from one featuring Jesus to the image of Hussein. So don't we all wonder when the actual news of the capture was known, or leaked, to reporters and correspondents?

What American citizens have to wonder about also is the idea that Saddam will be tried in Iraq. Why don't we bring him over to the United States and charge him with an attempt to assassinate a United States president, in addition to plotting terrorism, and any number of other charges, according to our law of the land?

What are we so afraid of? He might testify that he was paid by the CIA at one point in time, or that he was supported by the United States way back in the early '80s?

How gullible is the American public? Pretty gullible.

Don't forget that Wesley Clark is testifying at the Hague.

Wesley Clark Testifies at Milosevic War Crimes TrialVOA News
15 Dec 2003

General Clark was commander of NATO during the alliance's 1999 air campaign against Yugoslavia during Belgrade's crackdown on Kosovo Albanian separatists. He will testify behind closed doors for two days.

Editorial

Clark was on CNN or Meet the Press and wherever else yesterday after the news broke that Saddam was caught. Here is a man who knows all about "bad" guys. But would he rather fight the bad guys under NATO, or the United Nations than under our own law of the land, by the way, called the United States Constitution?

So now just how mesmerized are Americans?

Should Clark become president, what mistakes will he make and will we hear about them?

Gen. Wesley Clark to Testify at Milosevic Trial
Sunday, Nov. 16, 2003
Reuters 2003

Excerpt
Clark said he made a mistake in a 1994 meeting with Bosnian Serb Gen. Ratko Mladic, posing for pictures with him and accepting a bottle of brandy and a pistol.

Clark told NBC he was never told not to meet with Mladic, who is accused of slaughtering hundreds of civilians in pursuit of ethnic cleansing. He said the meeting was part of an effort to get both sides of the story in the Balkan conflict. At the time, Mladic had not been indicted as a war criminal.

"I thought it was very important that I be able to talk to the general that, if he didn't comply, we might have to fight some day," Clark said. "I should not have accepted the gifts."

member CFR? See for yourself.

Roster 2001. By the way, Diane Feinstein recently became a CFR member.

Name index for Council on Foreign Relations. Annual Report. 2001

http://www.namebase.org/xchu/Wesley-K-_28gen_29-Clark.html

Gen. Wesley Clark

Interviews Clark: http://www.wamu.org/dr/2003/drarc_030721.html

Keep tracking:

My research shows on September 11, 2001 George W. Bush remained seated in the Florida Emma E. Booker Elementary School's second-grade classroom for at least 6 minutes, and thus, did not immediately take action when he was informed that America was under attack.

There are a lot of questions the 9/11 Commission needs to ask about those briefings Bush had in the weeks before 9/11.

That doesn't mean that Clark or any of the Democrats are any better as far as leading this country in any way.

In fact, the candidate who would be the best for the United States would be one who would immediately sign an executive order to eliminate our participation in all foreign countries business, and would get us out of the United Nations.

Was Saddam a threat to the United States? Of course, there is historical evidence that he was such a threat. So too are many others who are permitted to continue to terrorize their own people the way Saddam undoubtedly did. Do we need to declare war on them. Absolutely, when they directly attack the United States of America.

Remember, the American people still do not know who exactly is responsible for the travesty of September 11, 2001. We don't know because reportedly, according to an Insight Magazine piece, at least six of the initial identified 19 terrorists - had fake ids which later turned out to be the identities of men who are alive.

Until the Bush Administration explains how men who are alive are the same ones who were identified as those who perished on 9/11, there will always and forever be doubt about the official explanation of who is responsible for 9/11.

Laurie Mylroie - guest on C-span, Dec. 23, 2003.


Updated 2/22/04 I've been reading up on Mylroie... I received the tape in the mail, but haven't yet had a chance to view it - so many other C-Span programs to watch. I should have watched the tape last night instead of Komodo and Curse of Komodo, but hey, sometimes you just need to watch mindless fiction. I also did catch ZDTV program on Conspiracies. Don't miss that program ever again.

go visit my new blog: http://conspirannoyya.blogdrive.com

(I have purchased the videotape, even at the hefty price, of this interview. I have since thought about this guest's presentation. I believe her explanation for the criticism she received - mid-way through the interview, a caller noted she sounded a bit off, almost as if she were on something. She explained the camera she was looking at was angled differently, and she should have been looking into another camera. I still have skepticism about her comment concerning the inablility of intelligence to "prevent" 9/11, but will wait to review the entire taped program.) (updated 1/14/04



December posting:
On the one hand, Mylroie noted that 9/11 could have been prevented, but she said, state involvement (Iraq) was evident in the first terrorist attack in 1993, yet was ignored by Clinton. She said the C Administration treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue. (She was an advisor to Clinton on Iraq in 1992) she mentioned the Sakeik Omar plot. Interesting, she mentioned the first world trade center bombing being part Iraq involvement and part Sudanese.

At the time, Clinton did bomb Iraq, she said, but the reason stated was for the attack on the life of george bush, not connection with the first terrorist attack.

Caller: worked on us central command, left military stating all we did was encourage al qaida, we emboldened these people when we merely bombed an aspirin factory. He mentioned Halberstan's book.

LM: clinton didn't want to deal with foreign affairs issues... the strange thing is, in 92 campaign clinton wasn't like that he was tougher on saddam during the campaign. in july 92, lake and berger said this is just a campaign... clinton didn't deal with national security isses after the campaign, but you wouldn't have known that from the campaign.

the decision to have war on iraq was made about a week after the 9/11 attacks, she said.

responsible for this intelligence failure, the bureaucrats, part of the democrats and part of the liberal media. Every time somebody comes along with a link between al qada and iraq and 9/11 attacks, it's ... not covered by newsweek... after 93 attack, clinton administration turned away the journalists from any connection with iraq.

now the issue is politically laden, the clinton white house made the mistake that resulted in the worst intelligence failue since ww2.

there was a recognition prior to 9/11 trhat there was a lot wrong with the middle east, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction... let's use 9/11 to cope with this mess, that's what the white house was saying... there hasn't been enough clarity about the role of iraq in 9/11.

Caller since end of war in iraq what have we learned of their role, saddam's role in 9/11.

LM: ... ed epstein done great work on this issue and explained that was in united states was cell phone calls, but she says that doesn't disprove the czechs at all and their info that ... did meet with ...

DO YOU THINK PREZ BUSH HAD GENERALLY ANY INFO ABOUT ATTACKS OF 9/11?

PERHAPS ON A VERY GEN LEVEL HE HAD INFO

ROBERTA WOLFSTEADER, VERY IMP BOOK ON PERAL HARBOR COULD NOT REALLY HAVE PREVENTED PH ALTHO A LOT OF NOISE IN THE BACKGROUND, THE INFO GETS LOST IN THE NOISE...

SHE THINKS 9/11 COULDN'T HAVE BEEN PREVENTED?

Caller: you just contradicted yourself basically, this administration tries to blame everything on the previous administration. Why were investigations ignored...

LH: it is very difficult to prevent these attacks true in Feb of 93 and 9/11 complaint with clinton is not that they didn't prevent, but afterwards they deliberately set aside the role of state sponsorship...

promote a false understanding of terrorism, and people can no longer deal with it.

only, well 59 died in terrorism prior to 9/11

Caller: clinton adm successful in preventing terrorism during their term.

LH. not successful, lucky, what could have happened in their 8 years in office, happened in the next administration!

Caller: opinion on Flight 800

LH: this is my own personal opinion, the explosion aboard happened july 17, 1996, is Iraq's national... that morning saddam... the night before a fax was sent to paper... saudi general... given the facts, given saddam's speech, and the fireball, this was an act of terrorism, she personally thinks it was an act of terrorism by iraq.

reading from her book, host 30,000 to 60,000 deaths due to nlawful use of chemical weapons...

LH: absolutes, one of the most brutal regimes in the world... along with north korea.

Host: have we set a new policy of pre-emption?

LH... or Libya... certainly why concessions made...

caller asks about false identity or potential identity of...

LH one of the key issues is the identity of al quaida masterminds... the core of terrorism started with 1993... sheik mohammed, uncle of usaf, financiar of 9/11 hijackers...

WHEW THIS WOMAN IS JUST DYNAMITE

do you believe iraq was involved in bioterrorism the anthrax attacks.

suni arab trained microbiologist whose work involves use of this... technical word...

guardian: (julian borger) new theory, saddam was fooled into thinking he had them...

LH: not fooled that info on which claim based was un weapons inspectors and with deals they had made for inspections...

JUST INCREDIBLE

caller: clinton's people tried to tell bush's people but were ignored.

LM: what happened with Freeh, appointed in 93... in washington there is a tendency for people to accomodate the president and since the president didn't want to hear, wasn't pushed... regarding what clinton people told, to a certain extent you may be right, they had not focused on terrorism policy... iin pentagon different, they had focused on anti-terrorism...

OH MY GOD... JUST EYE OPENING, SHOCKING...

caller: al duri... any connection to baluchi terrorists you identify as responsible for 9/11

LM: don't know any specifics of who is responsible but their identity is based on docs in 1998 no other terrorist group has this family, those are false ids ... kuwait...

emailer: Why bush unwilling to release documents...

LM: privacy should be respected, that's what they want... also concerned about a democratic fishing expedition and may be among the things that cia told president before 9/11 was related but there is too much noise and you don't differentiate between the important and the non-important...

JUST INCREDIBLE

caller: journalist on internet wrote about very strong ties and bush knew about 9/11 and during that time there was a plot to rescue bin laden family.

host: post 9/11 a plane did bring them out

LM: not sure, sounds somewhat garbled somewhat truthful. I didn't acknowledge that bush had any knowledge about 9/11 he didn't and there is no connection between bin laden and bush.

Well, people, this is where we lose her.

Little Rock: something about kadafi disarming can bush claim any credit for that.

LM: absolutely...

Adah, Ohio. Wonder what thought of Daniel Benjamin book... says bush and he met for years before and could have used what had already been set up.

Age of Sacred Terror, both clinton white house dealt with terrorism, i call it the clinton administration white wash... i breifed one of those... her previous book, study of revenge, makes the case saddam was behind 93 trade center bombings, was denied, she met with steve simon, presented that to him, and he sat there for an hour, they saw no evidence because they were not supposed to clinton didn't want to...

Well that is interesting, but it still doesn't mean that Bush didn't have any knowledge that planes could be used as missiles, and doesn't mean Rice didn't know either...

caller mentions project for a new american century

LM: learned in 95 when saddam's son defected and they learned about nuclear weapons policy.

Black hills, South Dakota: one turned up with antrax on his leg one of terrorists, who was terrance iki?

LM regarding anthrax lesion, hadn't been confirmed on one of 911 hijackers, suspected, another concern that received too little attention.

Host, reads from her book, iraqi freedom... gone well

LM: ... the war was fought brilliantly, but there was enormous intelligence failure, again, the bureaucracies would remain intact, but the top removed... should have been much more post war planning...
OK, I understand where she is coming from after reviewing this. Still, however she dismissed totally the potential "warnings" pre-911 which included such warning from heads of state of other countries. She catagorically said Bush did not have advance knowledge of 9/11.

Now people, an investigation has yet to be completed by the 9/11 commission, yet Mylroie doesn't even mention the commission or the fact the commission itself was prevented from obtaining the full material needed to make an assessment of anything related to what Bush knew or didn't know.

More info will follow since the interview will be rebroadcast today.

Naturally, just as I formulate my question to the guest, the segment is over.

I cannot believe this person (Laurie Mylroie) at all after her comments on several points. First, Mylroie cites the book of a woman who wrote about Pearl Harbor, advance warning of attacks - that author has been discredited. Second, Mylroie does not know the facts about the bin Laden family being flown out of the US after 911 - when all other planes were grounded and the nation had just been attacked by terrorists. Third, it is aggravating to hear Mylroie speak about "chatter and noise" as a so called excuse for this nation's security failure. Tell that to the widows and loved ones left behind. It is now well known that George Bush received briefing in August of 2001 about something - yet Mylroie doesn't seem to care whether that information is released!
 

 

http://citizenmom.com