"If you don't believe in LIHOP/MIHOP you're a DINO"

That's what I feel is being implied by a number of DUers. Food for thought LIHOP/MIHOP people:

VERY FEW AMERICANS BELIEVE IN THESE CONSPIRACY THEORIRES!!!. DEAN GOT BERATED BY PEOPLE WHO FALSELY ACCUSED HIM OF BEING LIHOP!!!!

If you want a candidate who believes in LIHOP/MIHOP, enjoy getting your 5-7% of the popular vote..'cause someone who doesn't believe in LIHOP/MIHOP is a *-kissing Repug-lite.

I believe in *'s incompetence. ( as further proof, I defended Gray Davis)

I believe * knew someonthing like 9/11 would happen, or knew about some of the details, but I don't think he'd be stupid enough not to do anything for political gains. I just think he ignored it because he didn't see Bin Laden as a real threat, like Clarke said.

I KNOW the majority of this forum believes that but DON'T let them push you around, you have to understand this forum does NOT represent the average ideals of an "average" democrat.

One thing I am not is a DINO regardless of what I don't believe about 9/11 conspiracy theories.

We come in all varieties on the left, but we have one thing in common, we can't stand what Bush has done.

I don't think there is, presently, enough evidence to conclude LIHOP or MIHOP. To make this a central part of any argument with those whose vote you wish to garner is silly. Not to say this story should die on the vine. It should be aggresively investigated. But, really, to conclude that MIHOP or LIHOP is a matter of fact is patently ridiculous.

LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose (Bush* let 9/11 happen on purpose for political gains)

MIHOP: Made It (9/11) Happen On Purpose, for political gains

DINO: Democrat In Name Only, someone who's a conservative Democrat. This connotation gets used to describe people who are moderate, but it should really be applied to people like Zell MIller and the Dixecrats instead of the DLC (exception being Lieberman and Al From).

Whether Bush made it happen or knew it happened or didn't have a clue, I want him OUT.

He looks rather shocked to me. So you don't have to be a 'centrist' to not think Bush knew.

What did Bush know about foreign countries RUNNING for President?

But, to me, he looks very shocked when the news is given and you can even see the tears welling up. Like, oh crap , I hope daddy can save me from this one.

at all.

now thats shocking

peace

www.takebackthemedia.com/liar.html (Flash presentation, make sure speakers are on)

Whether he 'had advanced knowledge' and 'let it happen on purpose' are not one and the same.

guilty and a bit panicked. Almost like "Oh shit it's finally really happening! Too bad we couldn't get it to happen when we hoped; when me and dick were on "vacation" for the whole month of August. Oh well, better late than never. Anyway that's why I'm here safe and sound on this meaningless photo-op. I'll sit here reading about the goat for another 20 minutes then I'll spend the rest of the day flying around on AF1 and hiding out until it looks like we got away with it."

Jeezus X Krist, Mary, Martha and John Lennon!

"He looked guilty; therefore, I'm sure he did it."

ROFLMAO!

concluded Bush must be innocent because he looked surprised. I'm just saying his expression and bizarre behavior could be interpreted in any number of ways.

Just cuz "most Americans" can't admit to feeling the broomstick being REPEATEDLY shoved up their asses and choose to ignore the stench of the leavings that gastrically distubed pachyderm standing in the Oval office is spewing out its asshole doesn't contradict the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that SOMETHING is amiss. Scream "conspiracy theory" all you want. Get back to me once your PERSONAL OX is laying in a bloody heap on the ground. I promise I won't say, "I told you so."

for reply of the week. Damn good.

Well done, Karenina. :)

Cheney Knew.
:)

Bush had been sent to that classroom to keep him out of the way.
He just sat there after being told what happened because no one told him what to do. He doesn't make a move without orders from Cheney,Rove or Rumsfeld. So he sat there while 3000 people died.

because, if all hell broke loose, he was in a state that had ALREADY declared martial law.

it's either criminal negligence or criminal complicity.

In either case, impeachment and prosecution should result.


MDN

The sheeple can't handle the truth.

You get what you accept.

I've been seeing those acronyms around here for ages, but no one ever spells them out in their entirety.

All kidding aside, I really do believe Bush and his people LIHOP and have been on the verge of conceding MIHOP several times. Did Bush himself know? Probably not, just like Reagan probably didn't know about Iran-Contra. Probably not.

Here's the thing though. It doesn't matter any which way, whether LIHOP, MIHOP or just gross incompetence. 3,000+ people are dead in the initial attacks, along with I don't know how many coalition soldiers and many thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis. Our civil liberties have been trashed, we've lost the respect of the world, the middle-east has been further destabilized, the Islamic and Christian fundamentalists have been further empowered, and our economy has gone even further down the toilet.

And what is the end result? Bush and Co. Inc. have profited from it. Immensely.

All this has been done and nothing will reverse it. So in the end, it doesn't really matter what the contingencies that led to the terrorist attacks in this country on Sept. 11, 2001, only that we stop these profiteers of war and terror from further entrenchment in our government.

This is all that counts right now and neither LIHOP or MIHOP need to be proven for that to happen. The full array of Bush and Co. Inc. lies, deceits and betrayals are coming to light and it is getting harder and harder for any rational person to believe that things in America just keep getting better and better. Their falsehoods must not be allowed to stand.

If we are successful in doing thusly, then I truly believe that our government can be won back from the greedy hucksters that control it right now. Only then will there be time to uncover the whole of the truth.

Thank You! :thumbsup:

:thumbsup: :bounce: :yourock: :bounce: :thumbsup:

THANKS!!! I REALLY needed that! I was about to start spitting upholstery tacks. :silly:

If this crime is, as I believe, more than incompetence, then it is much deeper then Bush inc., as it would require the assistance of people who were in the military/intelligence community before Bush, and who will certainly remain after his exit. You can satisfy yourself with just cutting the head off this fascist hydra. But I guarantee you it will be back. I don't know when. Maybe in 5 years, maybe 15, but when it does, it will be more devastating then ever, and it won't make the mistake of having an idiot in the white house. Mark my words.

www.unansweredquestions.org

For right now the main objective remains that we must get these people out of office and secure a majority in Congress. Then we can focus on deeper change.

We must keep our eye on the ball, and continue to press for a *real* investigation, even after Kerry is in office. Unfortunately, I think that once this damage control commission reaches a predictably weak conclusion, and once Bush has been removed from the white house, the movement to uncover the whole truth behind 9/11 will lose it's vital momentum and fall over like a bicycle. Still, I have some hope that this will not happen.

The double level of speculation here is really admirable. Basing an accusation on your feelings about other people's implications is quite a reach for a dragon to slay.

You're basing your argument on how many Americans believe what? Last I heard, about 2/3 of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the WTC/Pentagon attacks. Based on the implications I feel are involved in your post, I suspect you might be one of them (I'll see your two levels of speculation, and raise you a level).

I know of no one who is suggesting that (1) considering LIHOP/MIHOP theories is a prerequisite for membership in the Democratic party or (2) that any political candidate should run on a LIHOP/MIHOP platform.

Other than that, however, I find your post damned persuasive.

That's bullshit. What I'm saying is that I get the feeling someone DUers' litmus test for being a "real Dem" is to believe in LIHOP/MIHOP. There was a thread from a few days ago implying that, and it was either in this section, or in GD 2004.

Read it again, verrry slooooowly and carefully.

If we're going to make accusations based on feelings and implications, we can say pretty much anything we want to.

Especially when our feelings are drawn from the inferences we take from posts we can't even remember the forum of, let alone point to the posts on which we rely.

See how that works?

to jail in a just society.

moderate dems and left-leaning media types to quash the whole LIHOP/MIHOP thing. Many, including Al Franken, dismiss the idea outright. I'm not sure if it's because they really don't buy it, or if it's because they're scared it won't play in Peoria. It's almost as if some people hope we can simply take back the White House and not have to deal with what really happened on 911.

...accept something as 'incompetence' that would have gotten any other president* impeached or run out of office...especially a democratic president.

- The problem isn't whether to believe LIHOP...it's that the Dem party is full of cowards too afraid to ask the right questions in fear of hurting their poll numbers.

It's been truly amazingh to me on just how many items LIHOPers and MIHOPers have been proven dead right. But keep your head in the sand and you will keep it longer I suppose

Proven dead right is like, with photographs and stuff.

I'm not acutally saying your wrong, just asking for the two things above.

No need to be insulting.

"Proof" to me would mean, as the other poster indicated, photographs, or witnesses, or documentation, or transcripts of the hijackers and Dick Cheney talking on the phone, or what have you.

The MIHOP and LIHOP advocates have produced none of the above. All I've read about it just a lot of "isn't it funny that..." and "what a coincidence that...." And a lot of jumping to conclusions.

Until I see some legitimate proof, not speculation, then I will continue to believe it was only incompetence.

Occam's razor, and all that, you know.

employs and installs LIARS, CRIMINALS and its own "elite" players everywhere it can. Those who have a shred of human decency RESIGN.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/resignations.html

Again, the website link you supplied is not "proof".

I really don't understand why no one is hearing me on this. Again, "Proof" to me would mean photographs, witnesses, documentation, anything.

This is starting to get frustrating. I'm being told I have my head in the sand yet no one will offer anything other than conjecture.

or anyone else on this board, although many deserve lavish praise and kudos for their research, to spoonfeed you irrefutable "proof." If, in the face of the OVERWHELMING circumstantial evidence, nothing promts your outrage or a deep heartfelt desire to get to the slimy bottom of this convoluted pit, knocking down the WALL of LIES, OBFUSCATION and BULLSHIT MONKEY WRENCHES *cabal has thrown into the process, then you are simply in denial or disingenuous.

OBVIOUSLY YOU were NOT PERSONALLY AFFECTED by the destruction of the WTC. One of the planes went through the window of someone VERY DEAR TO ME. I'm ANGRY and posts like yours make me angrier.

The link I posted was pablum, merely a "teaser" to prompt the question, if ALL these people are bailing out, might there be reasons for them doing so that should see the light of day? How about that Sibel Edmonds, eh?

My post makes you angrier.

What in the world could I have possibly said that makes you angry? That I'm not convinced? Do you always throw temper tantrums when people don't agree with you?

"It is not up to ME
or anyone else on this board, although many deserve lavish praise and kudos for their research, to spoonfeed you irrefutable "proof.""

Sorry, but yes it is. You are the one insisting that I believe LIHOP or MIHOP. Are you saying that I should go do hours of research myself to prove your point? This makes no sense.

You assert that Smirk either let 9-11 happen on purpose, or that he made it happen on purpose.

I ask that, before I commit to believing such a thing and spouting it off in public to potential Democratic voters, that I am shown without a reasonable doubt that this is the case.

Instead, you sputter and shout about circumstantial evidence, which I have already told you I've reviewed and see a million holes in, then accuse me of being:

"disingenuous"
"in denial"

which are just cheap shots, thank you and

"not personally effected by the WTC attacks." Which, of course, you have no idea of knowing or not, and also as nothing to do with what we're discussing.

And your reaction, I'm sorry, but it makes me want to believe LIHOP and MIHOP even LESS, because instead of any substantial evidence you demand that I just accept it or I must be some sort of jerk.

Thank you for proving to me once again that those who push this nonsense are poised to throw our party over the edge, for the sake of sheer anger at Smirk, since all rationality flies out the window when their wacky conspiracy theories are challenged.

Welcome to the Internet, where people don't always agree with you, sorry.

"You assert that Smirk either let 9-11 happen on purpose, or that he made it happen on purpose."

Well, I assert no such thing. All I've ever seen the *dimwit do is look stupid, stick his finger up his nose, put his foot in his mouth and pull turd blossoms out of his ass.

However, I consider myself properly chastised for the emotional outburst. Mea culpa.

We can always agree to disagree, for now. Thanks.

So there goes your theory that if anyone disagrees with you they must not be as personally tied to the issue as you are.

Seen a lot of your posts on DU, and always respected your balanced opinions. Glad I'm not the only one skeptical.

I'm sorry for the loss of someone close to you but that is all the more reason, I would think, to find out the reasons involved. Making what would seem to some to be an emotional decision rather than a logical one is more difficult when even more emotions are involved.

Being hurt by something also does not give a person's opinion on the event's reasons more validity either.

and I think that he is too dumb for lihop or mihop but not too dumb for stupidity.

What can be attributed to incompetence.....

It sounds nice. Kind of like, "an apple a day keeps the doctor away".
But is it really relevant? Do police use it in investigations?

Police interrogator: "OK, let me get this straight. You *accidentally* shot your wife?"

Suspect: "Yup"

Police interrogator: "Come on now, we know that she was planning to divorce you, and we have witnesses that say you were afraid of losing the mansion in the settlement. We also have witnesses who heard you both arguing before the gun shot"

Suspect: "But you can't *prove* it wasn't an accident"

Police interrogator: "Please, the evidence is overwhelming. You just try that in court! Ha-ha-ha-ha-haaa!"

Suspect: "Well, a wise man once said, 'Never attribute to malice, what can be attributed to incompetence"

Police interrogator: "Really, wise man once said that? Gee, I'm sorry. OK, we're dropping all the charges."

registered republican ;) (you should waste their money too)

there's plenty of suspicious circumstances that hover around 9/11 event. though i need a more scholastic and definitive investigation/s (like not this 9/11 'softball team' investigation) before i come to a LIHOP/MIHOP conclusion.

won't rule it out, but i'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. still have jury out on it.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/updates/update15.html

<July 14, 1999: US government informant Randy Glass records a conversation at a dinner attended by him, illegal arms dealers Diaa Mohsen and Mohammed Malik (see June 12, 2001), a former Egyptian judge named Shireen Shawky, and ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas, held at a restaurant within view of the WTC. FBI agents pretending to be restaurant customers sit at nearby tables. Abbas says he wants to buy a whole shipload of weapons stolen from the US military to give to bin Laden. Abbas points to the WTC and says, "Those towers are coming down." This ISI agent later makes two other references to an attack on the WTC. Abbas also says, "Americans the enemy," and, "We would have no problem with blowing up this entire restaurant because it is full of Americans." The meeting is secretly recorded, and parts are shown on television in 2003 (see also August 17, 1999).

August 17, 1999: ...This same group meets at this time in a West Palm Beach, Florida, warehouse, and is shown Stinger missiles as part of a sting operation. US intelligence soon discovers connections between two in the group, Rajaa Gulum Abbas and Mohammed Malik, terrorist groups in Kashmir (where the ISI assists terrorists fighting against India), and the Taliban. Mohamed Malik suggests in this meeting that the Stingers will be used in Kashmir or Afghanistan.

Early August 2001: Randy Glass, a former con artist turned government informant, later claims that he contacts the staff of Senator Bob Graham and Representative Robert Wexler at this time and warns them of a plan to attack the WTC, but his warnings are ignored. Glass also tells the media at this time that his recently concluded informant work has "far greater ramifications than have so far been revealed," and "potentially, thousands of lives at risk." >

the Bush Administration would inhibit anti-terror efforts for awhile, in the hopes that some domestic terrorist attack would give them a justification for instituting their international agenda. Their own PNAC documents stated that they'd need just such a "catalyzing event" back in 1997.

Not Bush himself- he's a Reagan-esque joke. But Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld... I wouldn't put anything past that bunch.

...that Bush* had to have all the details for him to be in on the conspiracy. That's not true at all. His role in allowing 9-11 to happen might have been just to stay out of the way...out of the loop.

- George* knew before he arrived at the elementary school that the WTC had been attacked and other planes had been hijacked. He knew it yet he continued with his photo op despite America being under attack. He did so because he knew HIS job was to make sure that the commander in chief was not available to give orders that would stop the hijackers. That's all he needed to know.

PNAC is published, W knows his father's business interests and that he will inherit. Nothing need be said behind closed doors or in secret telephone conversation invoking "conspiracy." LIHOP does not require conspiracy.

Further, the meaning of let and on purpose are played to make LIHOP more than it could be, or less than it might be. At minimum, Bush let Cheney sit on Hart-Rudmann and dismissed OBL watching.

To ignore daily briefings, Hart-Rudmann, Clarke, both O'Neills might lead some to believe LIHOP based on a preponderance of this evidence. Perhaps another person, yourself, will only believe it if the president admits it, or we develop a brain-thought reading machine.

In other words you will not believe it, ever, anyway.

BTW, free speech doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you or says what you like. It means that you can be subjected to ideas you don't like.

Sometimes it makes all of us better persons, we all grow.

The LIHOP/MIHOP Conspiracists assert far more than inaction. 'Evidence' supposed to 'prove' these 'theories' requires cooperation of the military and major bureaucracies.

Confabulating such harebrained nonsense with serious discussion of Administration responsibility and competence does nothing but give Bush a Straw Man to knock down: "If I had known 4 planes were going to be hijacked on Sept 11, of course I would have stopped them."

But, oh superior one and all knowing one, I somehow can not shake the nagging suspicion that, you never actually even looked at the evidence which you now label "harebrained nonsense".

excerpt from unansweredquestions.org:

No US publication has ever put all the various foreign government warnings in one place; even Internet skeptics of Bush have paid scant attention to this issue. Here, for the first time, is such a list of warnings.

First, General Warnings
# In late 2000, British investigators teamed up with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands and began a yearlong probe of three Afghan men who had entered the Cayman Islands illegally. In June 2001, the Afghan men were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City, and were promptly taken into custody. This information was forwarded to US intelligence . In late August 2001, shortly before the attacks, an anonymous letter to a Cayman radio station alleged these same men were al-Qaeda agents "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines."

1. In late July 2001, Afghanistan's Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a "huge attack" on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, "possibly from the intelligence services." Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of "warning fatigue" arising from too many terror warnings.

2. Also in late July 2001, the US was given a "concrete warning" from Argentina's Jewish community. "An attack of major proportions" was planned against either the US, Argentina, or France. The information came from an unidentified intelligence agency.

3. An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was "very disappointed" that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning "large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001." He provided this information to the US in August 2001.

4. Hasni Mubarak, President of Egypt, maintains that in the beginning of September 2001 Egyptian intelligence warned American officials that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. He learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda.

Warnings the Attack Will Come from the Air

Many warnings specifically mentioned a threat coming from the air.

1. In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs." On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in "the final stages" of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush's briefing on August 6, 2001.

2. In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols which stand out." Within the American intelligence community, "the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified" but "there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented." This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany.

3. In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that "20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas." To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn't sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. "The request never came." Given that there were 19 hijackers and four pilots (who trained on Cessnas) in the 9/11 plot, one might think this would now be a big news item. But in fact, the information has only appeared as an aside in a CBS "60 Minutes" show about a different topic.

4. In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels.

5. Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. The head of Russian intelligence also stated, "We had clearly warned them" on several occasions, but they "did not pay the necessary attention." The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: "More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened."

6. Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasn't told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered "one of the West's most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world."

Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: "I'm studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other." The comment was followed by laughter . In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for "the brothers going to the United States," and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that "very, very secret" plan. In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps.

And now we can add:

"I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes" - Sibel Edmonds http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514

And dare I mention that the last G-8 summit before 9/11 was defended anti-aircraft missiles based on the fear that planes would be used as missiles, or that Ashcroft stopped flying commercial (the only Attorney General to do so) several months before 9/11? Come on now, people, who's ideas are truly harebrained here?

You can find more "harebrained nonsense" at:
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/

That is, if you care more about the truth then about being like everyone else.

The intelligence services were 'frantic' in the Summer of '01. There was plenty of evidence 'something' was afoot.

That is evidence that the Bush Admin should have done more than it did.

The Hare Brained Nonsense is to claim that 'The Administration' or 'Bush' knew specific details and made a specific decision to stop investigations, -stop- field agents from carrying out normal procedures, -help- hijackers get on airplanes, -order- the military to deviate from normal procedures.

All that would require the complicity of hundreds of Gov't employees and leave a paper and e-mail trail miles wide.

THAT is Hare Brained.

OK?

There is a legal term called, "beyond reasonable doubt".

"Beyond reasonable doubt" means something in a legal setting. When will all the questions about 9/11 be fully reviewed?

Oh, there's an investigation even now? They finally got permission to speak to bush&cheney--together--in private--with no real records.

And, after all the delays and stonewalling--the White House gets to edit the final report before release.

Sadly, there is so much complacency even among Bush's enemies that we will probably never have a full investigation. But I have to keep searching for the truth. For most people it's much easier to go along with the idea that whatever the majority believes is true. That path, for me, is not an option.

I keep thinking back on the Olvier Stone Movie JFK, when Donald Southerland, in the park asking Kevin Costner, "Who profited by it"
Not necessarily in money but who had something to gain. In that respect. Who needed public support? Why sit in a room putting kids at risk KNOWING something was happening? Why not leave after the second plane? Why not put the US public on alert? What took us so long to respond regarding fighter jets? Why was a mayor and media in charge. Not even a Governor? Not one federal person who could make a national decision. Just media showing horrors of the day over and over. With all the tech stuff out there today..was there no way for a hook up to the american people to calm fears? I am sure there was. We did not know if there were 10, 100, 1000 planes. We did not know which cities were targets. UNLESS SOMEONE KNEW...That has always bothered me. No beep beep beep..This is not a test..This is an emergency. Civil Defense was not even called out. Get real. I don't know who knew what was happening but I still say someone knew and someone in authority knew. The 9-11 commission to me is not asking all of the questions. Not the right questions.
Joe Q Public wants to know why he or she was left as an open target and the only flying that was being done at the time was by the evildoers and the Bin Laden family. I am not sure W is smart enough to know. But then again he may be smarter than we all think. That Stupid show may be just that...A show.

wouldn't he have put together a better show?

Wouldn't he have had an eloquent speech prepared?

Wouldn't he have arranged dash back to DC (in a fighter jet) and give his eloquent and defiant speech from the steps of the Capitol?

All this would have made him a true national hero.

Instead, he wanders around the Midwest and lands in Nebraska. Sounds to me more like a Doofus than a master villain.

And, BTW, if they made it all up, why didn't they stick a few Iraqi's among those hijackers?

It must be conspiracy because you called them conspiracists. How can one argue conspiracy with someone who starts like that!?

Pushing that MIHOP must be conspiratorial gives Republicans the straw man. Don't do it.

...to believe that 911 was just an isolated terrorist event is much more tantamount to "confabulating...harebrained nonsense" than those that believe in LIHOP or MIHOP.

JMHO.

We've had these arguments here at DU many times.

They got him out of the way. Maybe he had an inkling, but I really believe he is just along for the ride. They probably told him he could be the "war president" and he got all moist and surrendered complete control to the Cheney/Rummy Iran/Contra cartel.

I think it is becoming clear that the poster who said he was waiting for someone to tell him what to do is exactly right.

The dual appearance before the 9/11 commission should put all doubts to rest. Why are they afraid of what Bush will say if he testified by himself?

http://www.wgoeshome.com

As Documented On the White House Web Site, BUSH SAID:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html

I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Here we have the pResident TWICE saying in public and documented in an official White House transcript that he SAW the FIRST plane hit the WTC on television just BEFORE going into the classroom with the young students. Saying that he "thought" it was just a "terrible mistake"--in other words, that it never entered his mind that there was anything the least bit SUSPICIOUS about this event. It wasn't worthy of his attention as pResident or commander-in-chief. DUE TO TESTIMONY WE NOW HAVE about intelligence given to his office, HOW COULD HE NOT HAVE BEEN INSTANTLY ALARMED OR SUSPICIOUS if he, indeed, did see the first plane hit?

Of course, there is the deeper question, HOW COULD HE HAVE SEEN THIS EVENT ON TV WHEN ANY FOOTAGE OF IT WAS NOT BROADCAST UNTIL THE NEXT DAY?

So, the question is, DID HE OR DID HE NOT SEE THE FIRST PLANE HIT? If he did, HOW WAS THAT POSSIBLE? If he did not WHY DID HE LIE ABOUT IT TWICE? Does he want us to believe that he was CONFUSED? Twice? That he simply "misspoke"? TWICE?

But what is equally strange about this is that NO REPORTER OR ANYONE ELSE HAS EVER QUESTIONED THE pResident ABOUT THIS MATTER.

The ducks are waddling and quacking and making one hell of a ruckus and everyone is acting as if ducks don't exist.

Wow, that much? That's better than Nader's polling!

Honestly, I don't know any LIHOP/MIHOP believer who is making this a litmus test or campaign imperative for a presidential candidate. At this point I would say there's certainly enough circumstantial evidence to believe in the possibility of LIHOP/MIHOP, just not enough proof to convict in a court of law. It took a few years for the court of public opinion to shift regarding a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, but I don't believe it was ever an electoral issue for a presidential candidate.

Nice flamebait though. You friggin DINO. :)

because he's so very, very stupid. However, I am 99.9% certain that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfie, et al knew (1) AQ was planning something HUGE (2) that it would happen here (3) some likely targets. They were probably a bit surprised by the planes and might have been honestly unprepared to respond specifically to that, but they knew. And they felt it was "worth it" in order to get into Iraq and set their plans in motion and they could always say "We had no idea about the planes and the WTC" and it wouldn't be a lie.

And I don't believe that anyone who isn't as paranoid as I am is a DINO. Just so you know.

between "Bush is completely innocent" and "Bush L/MIHOP".

It's called "Bush had his head in his ass", and right now, it's the most persuasive argument. Negligence is not "on purpose". It's still a crime, though.

...just as has happened for his entire life. He's always the guy who was out of the loop or 'too stupid' to take responsibility.

- But here's the deal: Bush* took a job that he wasn't qualified for...but that doesn't mean that he can't or shouldn't be held accountable for NOT doing his job.

- Political insiders insist that Bush* isn't stupid at all and that he's very skilled at adapting and escaping accounability. Like Nixon, Reagan and Poppy Bush before him...he knows about 'plausible deniability' and staying out of loop. Just as he never gets the blame for his staff's dirty tricks and character assassination against his opponents...he'll take the credit but not the blame for one of the worse security failures in America's history.

- Even if Bush* had nothing to do with his government allowing the terrorists to get through our defenses...he has lied and deceived the American people and their representtives ever since. The only way out of this is to impeach.

I'm sure as hell not giving him a free pass!

I said Bush is responsible for his negligence. It isn't a matter of his competence or his intelligence or his qualifications.

But here's the deal: Bush* took a job that he wasn't qualified for...but that doesn't mean that he can't or shouldn't be held accountable for NOT doing his job.

NOT doing his job isn't "on purpose". It's negligence. Recognizing it as negligence doesn't entitle him to a free pass.

The only issue that cannot and will not be proven is "on purpose". If it was "on purpose", that would mean the had a chance to cover their trail during the planning of their purposeful actions.

The fact that they are engaged in a cover-up now means they didn't cover their trail. They are trying to conceal their negligent inaction.

The fact that they have exploited the events to further their objectives also doesn't prove the "on purpose" theory because the would have just as likely exploited it even if it happened as a result of their negligence.

What we know beyond any reasonable doubt:

> THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE THREAT SERIOUSLY ENOUGH.

> THEY ENGAGED IN DECEIT TO COVER-UP THEIR NEGLIGENCE.

> THEY EXPLOITED IT TO FURTHER THEIR PRE-EXISTING AGENDA.

Each of those things rises to the level of "high crimes", which should result in impeachment and prison for all high level members of this regime.

So There!

Looking for a cute BUNNYHOP.

is because of my personal experience. You can do what I did. First enter the USAF and then get stationed at a NORAD facility. Then cross train into Air Traffic Control with a Secret clearance and understand how aviation works. When you have those two life experiences look at how 9-11 happened again and tell me you won't feel it in the pit of your stomach that something is seriously wrong.
You have seen them take down possible drug smugglers in Cessna aircraft and they can't get ONE fighter within all of the hijacked aircraft approaching New York and this is with the FAA given a caution that shit might hit the fan? Forgot the fighters, how about a non commerical airline to follow and attempt to contact them by rocking their wings? I mean no one could be vectored to go SEE these birds? Get real.

I've seen the system work and most people board aircraft because they trust the system will work for good reason, it does. If you believe that the system failed you so completely on 9-11, how can any of you ever fly again? How can any of you work in a high building?

You know why you can? In the back of your mind you believe it was an isolated incident and why shouldn't it be. Then got their war on.

....I can't help but believe that there are human beings sitting in Texas prisons for much less curcumstantial evidence.....The arguement that its too big of a secret to remain covered does not wash with me....I would simply like to see the airport security clips identifying the perps and even that would do little to change my mind that they were nothing more than "patsies".....Does the "lone" passport convince those that "need" a video tape of the actual plans being assembled before making up their minds.....911 stinks and that is the final analysis for me.....Best Wishes

He's gone on print several times saying that he believes both the 9/11 and Paul Wellstone incidents were not directly instigated by Bush or the administration.

Someone asked him at a talk on the GWU campus in DC about whether Franken thought Bush was behind Wellstone's death or 9/11 and Franken's response was something along the lines of "every appearance I make there's one idiot who asks that question and you sir, are today's idiot"

I heard him say so on Crossfire a few months back.

How Stuart frickin' Smiley became the arbiter of truth for the American "left", I dunno.

MIHOP does not necessarily imply " both the 9/11 and Paul Wellstone incidents were not directly instigated by Bush or the administration." So what?

Of course, most of us think Bush incapable of directly instigating anything of substance. But we know people are really talking about the Bush regime.

LIHOP does not imply "direct instigation". It means that plenty of warnings were received and nothing was done to prevent 9/11. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft & others used the information to get out of the way. Their political use of the attacks & subsequent stonewalling of the investigation tend to confirm our suspicions.

That's what I feel is being implied by a number of DUers.
If it is a considerable number, I am sure you can provide one or two examples that clarify what you mean exactly.

My impression is that many people here post facts or news items about events surrounding 9/11 that hint towards LIHOP/MIHOP. As long as such posts are not accompanied by personal evaluations of other DUers, I cannot see that it is implied that someone is a Dino.

Further, I suggest not to use the term conspiracy theory, as I think that it is not beneficial to cognition. If Osama and his guys were responsible, that would be a conspiracy. If Rockefeller and his friends were responsible, that would be a conspiracy also. And conspiracies do happen. Look for example at the newly released documents, showing involvement of the US in the bloody Brazil coup d'état, 1964.

What how many Americans belive seems quite irrelevant for a MIHOP discussion (not irrelevant for defining an election strategy, naturally).

so did Cynthia McKinney, et al - it was the start of this administration's smear machine - the minute anyone suggested anything even remotely that Bush* may have known or been involved was castgated - if you will remember. The thing they didn't count on - was the Internet. They figured most Americans are as stupid as they are - so they could easily pull the wool over our eyes and no one would be the wiser... those who got too nosey would be silenced or killed, but too damn many people caught on. No way to stop them all. Well where they went wrong was that they underestimated the people's intelligence - even after taking over the airwaves with complete media blackout and Bushbot supporters (thanks in part to the Patriot Act - which was ready to go, amazingly so don't you think?) - there were some people and some groups who STILL JUST WEREN'T BUYING THEIR STORY. Bush thought he could not put together the Commission, he was wrong and begrudedly established it - thanks ONLY to the 9/11 Widows who have been relentless. He didn't count on them either - they were supposed to take the government's bribe of a million bucks and shut up and go away. They didn't. They underfunded the Commission and still the truth leaked out. EVERYTHING they have said and done has been a lie - WHY would 9/11 be any different? Is it also a conspiracy to say that Iraq DID NOT have WMD's? Because Bush* et al told us they did - so THEY MUST BE THERE right? Because our King said so. I think those of us who knew immediately 9/11 was a government operation and worked diligently to get the word out - and now the question is being asked right out in the open. This Commission will be a white wash - but a number of Americans know the truth and a number wonder. The Bush* Lovers will never accept it - so what? They won't even admit he lied about WMD's. Most are way too brainwashed to even think clearly.

There are numerous sites you can go to to look at the evidence yourself: cooperativereasearch, TomFlocco; do a search on WhatReallyHappened.com; so many many more - but if you are truly intersted in the truth - it is there for you to see.

Also - isn't it really as simple as WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? Do you think it is merely incompetance?? Ha - no, they're karma is coming to call and they are fighting for their lives - thanks to all the American citizens who were curious enough and bright enough to have questions and went to sort out and seek answers. They DO NOT want this case in a court of law - and if one of the widow's (Mariani) gets her way - they are done.... the evidence will be much more than "negligence" and you can take that to the bank.

Here are ONLY A FEW links - there are hundreds more. The work and researh and dedication of ordinary Americans is quite impressive.

CIA & INSIDER TRADING
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/9-11/CIA-WTC.html

9/11 FAMILIES REJECT MONEY/BUSH
http://www.oilempire.us/911families.html


9/11 VISIBILITY PROJECT

http://www.septembereleventh.org/

WHAT DID HE KNOW & WHEN DID HE KNOW IT – RAMSEY CLARK
http://www.literalpolitics.com/RamseyRants/RamseyArticles/whatdidhe.htm

Mariani vs. Bush
http://www.911forthetruth.com/

http://911skeptics.blogspot.com/
Nico's blog - great way to get a quick catch-up on the most recent developments

WHERE THE BLAME LIES
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=583

TWIN TOWERS

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/

FAILURE OF FLLIGHTS
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html

http://www.pi911.com/