How many DUers still can't believe the Bushies LET 9-11 HAPPEN?

- There seems to be a good number of DUers who have expressed doubts about this in the past. How many of you have changed your minds given the new information coming out almost daily?

- The evidence is overwhelming. Just today there are several more threads bringing information that the Bush* government not only knew about 9-11 in advance...but scurried around afterward hiding evidence, covering up the Saudi connection and flying bin Laden relatives out of the country.

- What kind of person/group would allow something like this to happen? The same kind of person/group that would lie a nation into an unnecessary war and kill thousands of innocent human beings.

But I believe that they are so moronic and monolithic that there was an opening for it to happen.

I am beginning to think they participated! Or am I just paranoid?

:hi:

I've been MIHOP since Sept. 11 2001, and there's nothing that's come out since that day that hasn't simply just confirmed my initial gut feeling.

These are profoundly evil people.

sw

I found it to be a no-brainer - they wanted it, they helped planned it and then let it happen. No remorse, only fear for their own skins now.

I'd say LIHOP has been proven without a doubt at this point.

MIHOP will be proven soon.

...they don't want to be called 'conspiracy nuts' by the right AND some on the left. But comeon people...what more do you need before you can connect the dots? A confession?

It is possible but I'm not so sure the evidence simply doesn't point to plain old incompetence.

too much time spent on tax cuts for the rich, Star Wars & Iraq & not enough time looking at real threats. Plus these guys have shown themselves to be completely incompetent at every turn.

but the Clarke testimony is pushing me in the direction of just flat out incompetence.

It could very well be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing and also one of unspoken assumptions.

Do I think that Rummy, Cheney and Rove got together in a room one day and planned to allow terrorists to strike? I'm not sure it's that simple. These guys are all about knowing what's going on and what they want and what needs to be done WITHOUT it being ever explicitly stated. These are the masters of the wink/nudge, insinuation and coded messages through symbolic gesture.

I'm also pretty sure that many in the admin. had no idea what was being allowed to happen. Condi and Colin come to mind. I have no doubt they were just window dressing and patsy's who were never in any loop and just given busy work until they were needed to be pushed to forefront as a puppet w/ a script to do the hard work of lying. I think the Chimp himself was only minimally involved. Certainly all the PNAC signatories knew what was going on, but I think it all stemmed from the PNAC documents and the rest never had to be spelled out for anyone. They just KNEW what had to be done on their parts and did it or directed others w/ the end game in mind. The end game being, it's necessary for the country to be attacked, pearl harbour-like, to further their goals of world domination.

What Dick meant when he said Clarke "frankly wasn't in the loop."

at first but have long ago come over to the MIHOP camp. They needed this and they made sure it happened.

I get the gist of it, but what is it literally?

n/t

Let It Happen On Purpose

Make It Happen On Purpose

Let happen on purpose
Made it happen on purpose

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I think some people avoid these "I can't believe DU'ers don't believe X like me" posts because they don't like getting attacked as naive from the get-go, amongst other common features of certain "outraged" posts here. Plus they could be like two doors down from the "calling out" posts people aren't supposed to post.

...but I will encourage them to look over ALL the evidence before they make up their minds.

How could anybody not think so after:

1. Reading "Rebuilding America's Defences" (the PNAC document), in which they
state the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" to justify what they intend to do.

2. Watching the video of Bush* in that classroom while the second plane hit the
WTC. Noticing his complete lack of reaction when he is told about it.

3. The "Patriot" Act and all the plans for invading Afghanistan and Iraq were
ready practically overnight when 9/11 happened.

4. All the stonewalling by the administration when the 9/11 Commission
asks them about what the administration knew and when they knew it.

What kind of fools do they think we are?

I am certain of it.
The Patriot Act, the full court press to gouge the Treasury
without oversight or stipulation in the name of security -
all of it was way too organized with seemless execution.
Bush made it happen.

Maybe the kind that believe "suspicion does not equal proof", a practice designed to keep you from going off the deep end before it's time to.

they always do

They knew about it and probably had a hand in it.

...and keep an open mind. The evidence does indeed point to them 'knowing' about it and by their inaction allowed the terrorists to complete their mission unimpeded.

All the evidence...it's shoking and disgusting!
This cabal HAS to go in November.

...too many of them "played dumb" at the commencement of the horror. Bush, Rumsfeld and Dick Myers all claim to have thought the first crash was an accident, which is absolutely ridiculous--especially now--when you consider all the intelligence they were getting prior to 9/11 that something was going to happen. I've said this over and over and over at DU but there is just no way they thought that was an accident. Why the act?

to carry out cheney's energy task force orders. I really appreciate the way the conversation is going. It took forever for anyone to say that bush was a liar. Now its commonplace, and the truth. I read a column yesterday linking bush activities to treason. NOW WE'RE TALKING. Now if we can get the nation taking a hard look at LIHOP relative to bush, Kerry won't need 100 million dollars.

On a similar note: To chat with your conservative acquaintainces, tell them if Clinton had been president on 11 Sep 2001, there would not have been a terrorist attack, because Clinton did not need a terrorist attack. Pisses em off every time.

The first thing they should of said"We knew something like this would happen."
That is the truth and to cover it up and say "Oh, my really? Oh,Gee? How could we think that they would do that."
With all the gruesome background on this crew and they are suddenly little dainty white lilies?

They needed a reason to invade Iraq, but they could have made up so many other reasons and could have convinced enough people to support them. As dirty and underhanded as they are, I don't think they would have LIH because of the devastation it did to the stock market. I don't think they care about people, but the sure do care about their money. A attack on Iraq would have the same advantage to Halliburton but without devastating the airlines and the economy overall.

- The Bush* government can now operate in a 'time of war'....making unilateral decisions on everything from energy policy to preemptive war.

- And why would they care about the stock market when they could pillage the national treasury to 'fight a war on terrorism' and enrich their defense/energy buddies?

...that the people in this administration think and act rationally and logically. Just remember, this is the ONLY administration that has ever taken us to war WHILE cutting taxes. Of course, that's just one thing among many.

And don't forget that this administration likes to kowtow to the people among us who think that the Rapture is coming soon. I wouldn't put anything past them.

It's in the PNAC literature.

9/11 was this?

What a great coinicidence that the people in power had one of these on their watch?

...who said she SAW information that the Bush* government KNEW the US would be attacked with planes? When you put her together with all the other whistleblowers...the evidence against the Bushies becomes undeniable.

- The Bush* government KNEW that something was coming...and simply kept out of their way and LET it HAPPEN for their own political gain.

I wonder if he was in the loop?

that Bush* and company let it happen on purpose, the writing is on the wall IMO.

I'm LIHOP... can't really fathom how MIHOP could exist, although F93 was probably shot down.

I love "conspiracy theories" of all kinds -- the more outrageous, the better. And I like to think I'm not gullible. I approach them all with a healthy skepticism.

I don't believe that "Star Trek" was a papal conspiracy to convert the world to Catholicism, or that my nephew was abducted by alien beings from outer space.

But, what worries me is that I'm not convinced that either LIHOP or MIHOP are NOT true.

I'm much more skeptical about the "official story."

purpose or not, they knew of the risk and didn't give it sufficient attention. Ergo, they let it happen.

"No way could this tragedy could of happened without someone knowing about it and letting it happen. We can be stupid just not this stupid or incompetent." My Dad

it all part of the fascist's formula. Hitler did it.

if you want to see all of the relevant facts, contradictions, and coincidences in one place . . . there are simply too many facts that contradict the official story for it to be viable . . . the author doesn't try to construct a new story of what actually happened . . . he simply raises all of the questions that result when you compare known facts to the "official story" . . . anyone reading this with even a small part of their mind open MUST conclude that a) the official story doesn't make much sense; b) there are far more logical explanations for what happened; and c) some parts of the government had to be involved, at least in a LIHOP kind of way . . .

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566565529/qid=1080710672/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4515073-0090306?v=glance&s=books

The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the BushAdministration and 9/11
by David Ray Griffin

all the way.

they pursued anyway.

We could have the bastard if we really wanted him (OBL, not Bush--he's too greasy to catch in the act).

and they know it...they didn't listen to Clinton and now they are covering their asses...

...and with each passing day I'm getting even more convinced that they MIHOP.

and I have looked at this issue a fair amount. My mind is open, though.

.
.
.

and

MIHOP is a definite possibility.

Some of the USA Administrations WANT war.

and the Bushies are defintely in the "WANT war" category.

That's my observation, . .

for what it's worth . .

But they took advantage of it and milked it for all it was worth.

Incompetence can lead to lying and CYA behavior.

I respect Richard Clarke and I think that if there was any evidence of LIHOP or MIHOP he would be one who would have some inkling of it.

MzPip
:dem:

If you mean that they know that on 9/11 in the morning they twin towers would be attacked and went around ordering people to do nothing about it, that's not quite conclusively proven - that's strong LIHOP.

Weak LIHOP is that he had more than enough warnings and more than enough information to act and refused to make it a priority (either deliberately or because he's a moron) and therefore left us wide open to what happened. After it DID happen, they ran around trying to hide the fact that they completely ignored contstant warnigns about the threat. That's weak LIHOP.

And that's what I believe.

:kick:

Bush* is a sociopath, so I don't put anything past him. But, he's also lazy and careless. I think the later two reasons more than explain why 9-11 happened on his watch without any influence by him whatsoever.

The evidence that he knew much about the attack prior to 9-11 is sketchy at best and more conjecture than anything, certainly not even approaching overwhelming.

Anyone who says the evidence is "overwhemling" that Bush himself specifically allowed 9/11 on purpose is being dishonest about the nature of "evidence."

If anything, the 9/11 commission makes it even harder to believe LIHOP or MIHOP, and instead gives a lot of creedence to a different explaination. It is not just incompetence, though that is certainly part of it. A better term is Depraved Indifference. Where the evidence from the 9/11 commission seems to be leading is to a conclusion that says, the Bush Administration never took terrorism seriously, instead being preoccupided and fixated with accomplishing old long standing goals of the old gaurd: iraq, SDI, taxes, etc. Part of the reason Bush never took it seriously is because I don't believe he was ever willing to listen and be convinced of the seriousness of the thread, and part because the PNAC crowd thought in the back of there mind that if something like that ever did happen it would be good for them. That's Depraved indifference and so far that's as far as the concrete evidence takes us.

The rest is pure conjecture and speculation. It's an important question to ask, when you ask if the Bush Administration thought a domestic attack wouldn only help them (ie. a new pearl harbor) did they do anything to make or let a specific thing happen? It's possible, but it is certainly unclear. May people have thought to themselves "you know if that person got hit by a car and died today, I wouldn't really be unhappy." That doesn't mean they have any plans to push that person out in front of a car. If you wnat to claim that they DID, you need hard evidence. Same holds true here.

What is crystal clear with concrete, rock solid evidence, is that Bush is guilty at least of Depraved indifference. And I remain interested in concrete evidence not blind speculation and supposition.

Internet threads are usually not proof.

But why do you care? I mean it's not like I'm any less dedicated to getting Bush out of office because I don't believe he deliberatly allowed 3,000 americans to die.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

But then I always thought he did. When I originally saw the video of Bush sitting there in that school after Andrew Card told him the second plane hit.

Has there ever been a scenario that equates to 911? Sure we have had planes blow up in the air and our government and air travel agency took precautions to avoid bombs on the planes.

Here is what I think. I think that the plan was so outrageous that no one prior to 911 would have believed it. If we are to place the blame we should say our government, regardless of which president is to blame (all agencies). The whole government structure was and still is so compartmentalized that it would be almost impossible to avoid a disaster such as 911. One of the main reasons I feel is just trying to sell the plane scenario to the American public during the Clinton administration as well as Bush's administration would make us think that these presidents have gone plain crazy. And the money to tighten security at airports would have probably been rejected. How many of us would have pitched a fit if America banned the use of nail clippers, pocket knives... on planes?


I refuse to play the blame game. It happened, I accept it that it happened and any standing president that allows it to happen in the future should be tarred and feathered.


Also, if you disagree with my comments I implore you to simply state you disagree and tell me why do feel the way that you do.

Here we go again!

But, let's be very clear. LIHOP is NOT Dick Clarke's story of incompetence and indifference. LIHOP Conspiracists claim to have -proof- of active assistance to the hijackers. Activities so obvious it can be gleaned from public sources. Active assistance could not happen without the efforts of ordinary everyday employees of CIA, FBI, the Military, etc. THAT's LIHOP.

So, I'd say that pretty nearly everyone except the hardcore Conspiracists still "Reject LIHOP".

But keep trying, these threads are always good for a hearty HorseLaugh.