Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (1043)	5/9/2003 10:59:58 AM
From: tsigprofit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

I believe there are facts showing that they had indications of an attack before 9-11. Not that they caused it - but that they had indications an attack was imminent, of some kind. I also believe they came out just after 9-11, and said they had no indication something like this could happen. I believe this is lying to the American public. Also - I believe it is well documented that a bi-partisan panel had recommended the creation of the Homeland Security Dept. months before 9-11. I believe John Ashcroft actually cut security funding just before 9-11. For all of these reasons - I believe an investigation of them all is in order. Surely, if it was OK to investigate a personal affair that Clinton had, or a real-estate deal that happened years before he was elected (where he lost money) - it is only fair to investigate: * 9-11 - and what was known before * how funds for security were cut before 9-11 by the Bush admin. * conflict of interest links between Bush, Cheney, and Enron and the oil industry. This is only fair. Also - if these investigations confirm some of these things, then I think there is more than enough grounds for Impeachment. Cheney would have to be removed also though. t