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: Sully- who wrote (13646)	11/10/2004 8:21:54 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Suma: "Administration's next move in the war on terror would be against Iraq, whether or not Iraq proved to be involved in the 9/11 hijackings, was under active discussion." wstera_02: "The 9/11 Commission proved that to be a lie." --- No, you are quite wrong there. Since you enjoy the "lie" word so much, lets use it on you... You are LIEing. There, how does that work for you? 1. First off, the administration's fixation on using 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq dates back to the first hours after the attack itself: Page 335, 9/11 Commission report: "The secretary [Rumsfeld] said his instinct was to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time--not only Bin Ladin." Page 335, 9/11 Commission report: "[At Camp David retreat] Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz--not Rumsfeld--argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked." And goes on to state: "Wolfowitz continuing to press the case to attack Iraq" (sept 17 2001, Sept 18 2001 and probably his every waking day since conception) 2. Secondly, the Commission found NO ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq and NO culpability of Iraq in the 9/11 attack: Page 66, 9/11 Commission report: "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." And note: the CIA report on Iraq mentions Bin Laden and Al Qaeda exactly... ZERO times.

To: Sully- who wrote (13646)	11/11/2004 1:12:00 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 20773

Re: The 9/11 Commission proved that to be a lie. The Kean/Hamilton Commission is an national comedy. It's more useless than the Warren Commission with its ridiculous "single bullet theory". The Kean Commission was delayed by George Bush for 14 months. Then Bush arrogantly attempted to underfund it with only a $3 Million budget and head it with Washington's best cover-up artist, Henry Kissinger. You're a damn fool to believe a word of the Kean Commission's report. They re-wrote history three times before it became acceptable to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who had the most to lose in an honest investigation. If you have the least bit of interest in truth and decency, I would strongly encourage you to read this book: interlinkbooks.com The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report By David Ray Griffin “With this new book, David Ray Griffin establishes himself, alongside Seymour Hersh, as America’s number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths.” – Richard Falk, professor emeritus, Princeton More Reviews>> interlinkbooks.com With US political leaders Democrat and Republican alike rushing to embrace the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and an eager media receiving the Commission’s 567-page report as the whole story, the history we can stand upon forevermore, everyone who cares about the fate of American democracy will want to know something about what those pages actually say. The Commission’s account, by popular reckoning, has made an impression with its heft, its footnotes, its portrayal of the confusion of that sobering day, its detail, its narrative finesse. Yet under the magnifying glass of David Ray Griffin, eminent theologian and author of The New Pearl Harbor (a book that explores questions that reporters, eyewitnesses, and political observers have raised about the 9/11 attacks), the report appears much shabbier. In fact, there are holes in the places where detail ought to be thickest: Is it possible that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has given three different stories of what he was doing the morning of September 11, and that the Commission combines two of them and ignores eyewitness reports to the contrary? Is it possible that the man in charge of the military that day, Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers, saw the first tower hit on TV, and then went into a meeting, where he remained unaware of what was happening for the next 40 minutes? Is it possible, as the Commission reports, that the FAA did not inform military that the fourth airplane appeared to have been hijacked—contrary to both common sense and the word of FAA employees? Is it possible that the Report, upon which are based recommendations for overhauling the nation’s intelligence, fails to mention even in a footnote the most serious allegations made public by Coleen Rowley, FBI whistleblower and Time person of the year? David Ray Griffin’s critique of the Kean-Zelikow report makes clear that our nation’s highest leaders have told tales that wear extremely thin when held up to the light of other eyewitness reports, research, and the dictates of common sense—and that the Commission charged with the task of investigating all of the facts surrounding 9/11 has succeeded in obscuring, rather than unearthing, the truth. David Ray Griffin is Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Emeritus, at the Claremont School of Theology (California) and the author of twenty-five books, most recently The New Pearl Harbor: Distrurbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 and Two Great Truths: A New Synthesis of Scientific Naturalism and Christian Faith. 352 pages • ISBN 1-56656-584-7 *** It is shipping next week. I'll have my copy soon. Then the two of us should compare notes, eh?

To: Sully- who wrote (13646)	11/11/2004 10:27:07 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations. “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” cbsnews.com