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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (53695)	10/19/2004 10:38:01 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 81568

Some interesting posts from a Financial Times website... forums.ft.com Bush is more vulnerable to a dirty attack than you think. by Dissident 18 Oct 2004 04:45 AM Even Stevens at the moment. This looks like going to the wire. Bush is very vulnerable on the war on terror, and I wish someone would do a Willie Horton over this on him: - posner's revelations of the suppression of abu zubaydah's confession - the connections between al-qaeda and the Pakistani ISI (for example Omar Sheik's cellphone, General Mahmoud Ahmed,and Muhammad Atta) - and the US support for the ISI - see for example the connections between General Mahmoud Ahmed, the head of ISI and Muhammed Atta, and the connections between General Mahmoud Ahmed and Powell and Tenet, and the Bush administration. - the decision to let several thousand al-qaeda fighters leave the beseiged city of Kunduz on Pakistani military aircraft in November 2001. - and the crucial fact, that all these involve protecting the royal family of Saudi Arabia from US and international law, and the fact that Bush owes much of his wealth to Saudi money. Have a look at Craig Unger's book, among other sources. Bush is too dependent on Islamic fundamentalist terrorists to be able to prosecute a war against them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moral clarity ? by Ingrid 18 Oct 2004 03:50 AM Bush has been using the 9.11. incident as his top theme to win votes so far. The messy aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan are all justified under the topic of resolution to fight terrorism. The bad financial conditions are instead glossed over by praising himeself for a great job done through senseless tax cuts for the rich. In addition, his strategists kept using such key phrases as "moral clarity" to attack Kerry. For anyone with a more clear head, Bush's clarity obviously means shallow, hollow, simple-minded, reckless, unilatral, trigger-happy, wasteful pre-emptive military attacks of foreign countries under false pretexts. The American voting public at large probably do not have the wisdom to see through all the grossly misleading claims.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (53695)	10/19/2004 11:32:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 81568

We should email this Robert Scheer article to ALL major media outlets...this CIA report needs to be released BEFORE the election...lets mobilize folks... theregular.org full text of the article If you aren't registered on LA Times, it's worth it just to read the article, but here's the full text anyway: The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket ROBERT SCHEER The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials. Robert Scheer October 19, 2004 It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago. "It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward." When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. "We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned." According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush. The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress. "What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible." By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress. "It surely does not involve issues of national security," said the intelligence official. "The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIA has ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a report to the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress." None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss. The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain. And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or on the record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks reelection to the top office in the land based on his handling of the so-called war on terror. In September, the New York Times reported that several family members met with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspector general's report. "Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the paper. The failure to furnish the report to Congress, said Harman, "fuels the perception that no one is being held accountable. It is unacceptable that we don't have [the report]; it not only disrespects Congress but it disrespects the American people." The stonewalling by the Bush administration and the failure of Congress to gain release of the report have, said the intelligence source, "led the management of the CIA to believe it can engage in a cover-up with impunity. Unless the public demands an accounting, the administration and CIA's leadership will have won and the nation will have lost."