So far the sources are supercon Taranto and Newsmax (R-CIA), quoting a radio interview with Dean - and adding the predictable gratuitous insult to Cynthia McKinney. I expect it will produce follow-ups and we'll see what D. really said and how the WH reacts.
This may be it: the 9/11 coverup and the Dean candidacy both about to culminate, one way or another. Dean has apparently put his neck out on this, as he did with Iraq, and the truth showdown may have arrived.
Dean on WAMU: "The president is suppressing evidence"
Dean: Bush May Have Been Tipped to 9/11 Attacks
Newsmax -Tuesday Dec. 2, 2003; 8:08 p.m. EST
It looks like ex-congressional nutball Cynthia McKinney has picked up some new support for her conspiracy theory that President Bush had advance word of the 9/11 attacks - from none other than Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean.
Dean said on Monday that President Bush is withholding documents related to 9/11 because they may show he knew what was coming.
"The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis," Dean told a caller to Washington, D.C's Diane Rehm Show, according to a transcript obtained by Opinion Journal.com.
"Now, who knows what the real situation is?" the presidential conspiracy theorist cautioned. He then added, "But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not."
...it's not surprising that a hack publication like NewsMax would try to spin it, but what he's saying we've seen again and again here. The Bush administration, in an effort to maintain secrecy and avoid embarrassment, provides fertile ground for speculation and conjecture. What we DO know certainly seems to indicate that the confluence of coincidences is a little much to accept at face value. There has to be more to it, and a cover-up gives weight to theories that Bush was forwarned, and allowed the attack to happen.
He put the idea out there, and qualified it by saying he doesn't necessarily believe it, but the administration's stonewalling makes them look suspect. Whether you believe the chimp knew or not, it may get into your head that he should release the papers and clear it up, and if he doesn't, why doesn't he? It makes the average person see that the administration is being too secretive and not helping out the victims of 9/11. Good move!
...we don't know WHAT he is suppressing. We've circumstantial evidence, we know he is suppressing quite a bit, but we don't know what. Thus giving rise to speculation and conjecture. Dean framed this correctly.
As long as he is careful, careful, careful; doesn't say anything stupid. He's just pointing out what happens when government isn't forth-coming. He brings up the suppression of 9/11 intelligence and plants a seed, a curiosity. With Howard, a seed grows into a forest in a week, whether it's based on the truth or not. So this could work.
Or it could backfire. Why is Howard suppressing his records? Same basic reasons. We'll see how it plays out. This could be very telling for next year's election.
That's what Republicans do, turn things around on their opponent. I never said there was anything in his records. In fact, I don't think I've ever posted about his records because I think it's stupid.
Just because I see their ploys coming, doesn't mean I'm working for them. Nobody else knows how to look at situations objectively and think about them from the other side? I'm just saying that they could turn this around and make it about Howard suppressing his records. After all, there's alot more reason for a President to suppress records than a governor.
If they don't, it could work well for Howard. If they do, it could backfire. That's all.
It involves 3000 dead people. There is a compelling national interest in knowing the truth about 9/11. You cannot construct a legitimate argument for a compelling national interest in the personal papers of the Governor of Vermont.
The comparison or parallel you attempt to draw is absurd on its face.
I am truly impressed. I usually can't listen to call-in shows because freeperlike callers make me too angry and it is so rare that the caller makes any kind of contribution. I guess we do need liberal shows with wider availability because your call could be truly huge. Congrats!
was aired on klif570 in dallas this morning...right wing talk radio host Darrell ankarlo spun it into "Howard Dean is a pedofile. He had sex with a fourteen year old"
He spent at least five minutes making baseless allegations, then claimed it was "...all a theory"
Ankarlo's disgusting comments are supposed to be clarified at 8:00 am
I want your phone number and a promise that I'll be the last person you talk to before you step into the voting booth. It's all good though, nothing wrong with an open mind.
how their response to Dean compares with how they responded to Clark when he addressed this issue in some of his speeches and interviews.
We all know that condi and bush were briefed extensively on bin laden and they were given the intelligence about their possible plans (I'm not necessarily saying that the plans were specific to Sept 11). They totally blew off that information and did nothing.
I can't remember which reporter was asking Clark about his comments on this, but the poor guy's head was going to explode, he was in such a fury that anyone would challenge his bushie on 'what he knew and when he knew it.'
So I'll be anxious to see if Dean is strung up by his heels for this, or if it's swept under the rug. Hate to bring too much attention to what he says by challenging it! I like how Taranto, in his commentary, manages to bring Clinton/Vince Foster into the discussion. Can you say obsessed???
How about the other candidates. Have any of them addressed this? You're right, that the more it's put out there, on as many fronts as possible, the more people might start to think.
but I'm glad for his support in calling Bush* out for his complicity with the tragedy of 9/11.
Other candidates (Graham for one) have criticized Bush* for some time now about the warnings he received and his admin's lack of response, which Al Franken called "Operation Ignore"
The lawsuit against Bush being filed by a 9/11 widow has a list a mile long of the various warnings about an impending attack. For the bandwidth sensitive, I'll only post a few, but the whole complaint is a facinating compendium of events. Read it here:
(3):::June 6, 2001. German intelligence warned CIA
The German intelligence agency, the BND, warned both the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.” This intelligence reportedly came from Echelon, a high-tech electronic surveillance system used by the intelligence agencies of several nations to glean through electronic communications for certain keywords. It was first reported by the German daily newspaper, Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung on September 13. Its sources were reportedly from the BND itself. (Stafford 9-13-2001; Thomas 5-21-2002) According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002) of Global – Intel, the original source of information actually came from Israeli Mossad agents operating in the U.S. who had infiltrated al Qaeda. According to his account the Mossad also informed British and Russian intelligence about the attacks, who then in turn notified the CIA. Thomas’s sources are allegedly informants within the Mossad itself.
(4):::July 16, 2001. British intelligence sent a report to Tony Blair warning of imminent attacks. The report was also sent to Washington
The British Cabinet Office Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) sent a memo authored by the heads of British intelligence agencies, MI6, MI5 and GCHQ, to Tony Blair and other cabinet ministers, warning that al Qaeda was in the final stages of preparing for a terrorist attack. The memo suggested that the attacks would likely be aimed at American or Israeli targets. The report did not indicate however that the agencies had any knowledge with regards to the “timings, targets and methods of attack.” According to the Times of London, the warning was “based on intelligence gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency, which has staff working jointly with GCHQ.” The newspaper added, “The CIA sometimes has a representative on the JIC. The contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed to the Americans, Whitehall confirmed.” (Evans 6-14-2002)
(5):::June 23, 2001. Arabic News Network reported that bin Laden had predicted a ‘severe blow’ to the United States.
“According to the June 23rd AirlineBiz.com report, the Arabic satellite television network MBC claimed that ‘the next two weeks will witness a big surprise.’ An MBC reporter who had met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on June 21st predicted that ‘a severe blow is expected against U.S. and Israeli interests worldwide. There is a major state of mobilization among the Osama bin Laden forces. It seems that there is a race of who will strike first. Will it be the United States or Osama bin Laden?’ ” (Grigg 3-11-2002)
(6):::Summer 2001. Jordan’s General Intelligence Division (GID) warned Washington of an attack planned on the U.S. mainland using aircraft.
According to John Cooley (5-21-2002), author of the book, Unholy Wars: America, Afghanistan, and International Terrorism, Jordan’s intelligence agency, GID, intercepted al Qaeda communications indicating that a terrorist operation, code-named ‘Al Ourush al Kabir’ or ‘The Big Wedding,’ was being planned for within the U.S. and would involve aircraft. Cooley confirmed the validity of this warning. (see also Bubnov 5-24-2002)
(7):::Summer 2001. Iranian man warned U.S. authorities of a planned terrorist attack during the week of September 9, 2001
Online.ie reported “German police have confirmed an Iranian man phoned US police from his deportation cell to warn of the planned attack on the World Trade Centre” during the week of September 9. He reportedly called several times. Very little information was given about the ‘Iranian man’ other than the fact that he was 28-years old. No other news agencies independently reported the incident. (Online.ie 9/14/01; cited in Anova 9-14-2001; Ruppert 11-2-2001; 11-24-2001; 4-22-2002)
(8):::August 2001. Moroccan intelligence warned Washington about “large scale-operations in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001”
According to reports published in November 2001 by a French magazine and a Moroccan newspaper, Morocco’s royal intelligence informed Washington that one of its agents, who had penetrated al Qaeda, learned that bin Laden’s organization was preparing “large operations in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001.” The agent, who is said to be presently in the U.S. helping its intelligence agencies, also informed Moroccan intelligence that bin Laden was ‘very disappointed’ with the first WTC bombing which failed to bring the two towers down. John Cooley (5-21-2002), who reported this in the International Herald Tribune wrote that as of 5-21-2002, he had not independently verified this warning. (see also Bubnov 5-24-2002)
(9):::August 2001. Israel warned U.S. about large-scale attacks on the U.S. mainland
“Israeli intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.” (Jacobson and Wastell 9-16-2001; Davis 9-17-2001; Stafford 9-13-2001; Serrano and Thor-Dahlburg 9-20-2001; Martin 1-5-2002; Martin 1-16-2002) According to Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002), this information was based on intelligence gleaned from Israeli Mossad agents who had penetrated or were spying on the al Qaeda operatives. Thomas’s sources are allegedly informants within the Mossad itself.
According to Argentine Jewish leaders, the Jewish community in that country “received a warning about an impending major terrorist attack against the United States, Argentina or France just weeks before September 11.” Forward quoted Marta Nercellas, a lawyer for the Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas, or DAIA, Argentina's main Jewish representative body: “It was a concrete warning that an attack of major proportion would take place, and it came from a reliable intelligence . And I understand the Americans were told about it.” (Forward 2-5-2002)
(11):::August 24, 2001. Russian intelligence warned of possible hijacking
Russian intelligence warned the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots were specifically training to crash airliners into planned targets. This was reported by the Russian Izveztia on September 12 and translated for From The Wilderness Magazine by a former CIA officer. (cited from Ruppert 11-2-2001; see also Ruppert 11-24-2001; 4-22-2002; Martin 1-5-2002; Martin 1-16-2002) According to Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002) Russian intelligence received this information from the Israeli Mossad.
(12):::August 31, 2001. Egyptian president warned U.S. that something was brewing
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned the U.S. that “something would happen” 12 days before the terrorist attacks. (AP 12-7-2001; MacFarquhar and Tyler 6-4-2002; Martin 1-5-2002). Egypt had also warned the U.S. on June 13. (Martin 1-16-2002). The U.S intelligence denied that they had received this information soon before the attacks and instead alleged that the only warnings that had been given to them from Egypt occurred between March and May of 2001. (MacFarquhar and Tyler 6-4-2002)
(13):::September 1, 2001. Russian intelligence warned the U.S. again about ‘imminent attacks’
“Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government ‘in the strongest possible terms’ of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings” (We do not have a reference to the original source. See Ruppert 11-2-2001; 4-22-2002 based on MS-NBC interview with Putin, September 15. See also Martin 1-16-2002; Thomas 5-21-2002) According to Gordan Thomas (5-21-2002) Russian intelligence received this information from the Israeli Mossad.
(14):::Early September 2001. Mossad chief warned CIA of possibility of attacks
According to Gordon Thomas (5-21-2002), Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy warned both the CIA and FBI of the possibility of near term attacks. George Tenet presumably thought that it was “too non specific.”
(18):::September 10, 2001.
U.S. intelligence intercepted conversations from al Qaeda that were extremely specific. USA Today, reported “Two U.S. intelligence officials, paraphrasing highly classified intercepts, say they include such remarks as, ‘Good things are coming,’ ‘Watch the news’ and ‘Tomorrow will be a great day for us.’ “ This information was contained with 13,000 pages of material from the National Security Agency that was handed over to the Congressional 9-11 inquiry. It is unclear when these intercepts were reviewed by U.S. intelligence. They may not have been reviewed until after 9-11. (Diamond 6-3-2002)
(10):::February 2001. Warning from George Tenet: bin Laden and al Qaeda are the most serious threat to the U.S. and they intend to inflict mass casualties
In February of 2001, CIA Director George Tenet warned that bin Laden should be considered the “most immediate and serious threat” to the U.S and added, “As we have increased security around government and military facilities, terrorists are seeking out ‘softer’ targets that provide opportunities for mass casualties.” (cited in CNN 5-16-2002 “Timeline: Events leading up to September 11”; Cornwell 5-25-2002)
(11):::Summer 2001. Former chief investigative counsel warned U.S. Justice Department that FBI believed terrorists were planning to attack lower Manhattan
(a):::David Shippers, a Chicago attorney who had been the chief investigative counsel in the attempted impeachment of Clinton, warned the U.S. Justice Department that a massive terrorist attack had been planned for lower Manhattan based on what FBI agents from Chicago and Minnesota had told him. His warning was shunned by officials, one of which stated, “We don’t start our investigations at the top.” (cited in Grigg 3-11-2002)
(b) During an October 10, 2001 radio interview, he revealed that he had warned “Attorney General John Ashcroft and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that he had proof from a credible source (that he has still not revealed) about a plot to use hijacked commercial airliners to ram the White House and Capitol.” (Chin 5-19-2002)
(d) On May 30 2002, one of Shipper’s sources in the FBI, Special Agent Robert Wright disclosed in a testimony broadcasted on C-SPAN that FBI officials and other agents had ‘stymied’ his own investigations into suspected terrorists. (Horrock 5-30-2002)
(12):::Summer 2001. The ‘threat assessment’
On July 26 2001, CBS News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft was no longer using commercial airliners to travel – even for personal business – because of a “threat assessment” issued by the FBI. Instead Ashcroft was using a chartered jet that cost taxpayers $1,600/hr to fly. The news network further reported: “Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.” (CBS News 7-26-2001)
July 2001 - Italian authorities (probably chanelling Egyptian intel) shut down Genoa airspace and install anti-aircraft batteries, warning U.S. and leaking to the press of a plot by BIN LADEN OPERATIVES to hijack planes and CRASH THEM INTO BUSH'S HOTEL at the Genoa G-8 summit (starting July 20). Press laughs. As a precaution, Bush and entourage spend a summit night on a U.S. aircraft carrier (possibly including Condoleeza "No One Could Have Imagined Anything Other than Traditional Hijackings" Rice)! Rumors first circulated earlier that month, prompting Jim Hatfield to write his last article, in which he asks, "Why would Bush's former business partner want to crash a plane in his hotel" and states his hunch that the CIA is the ultimate source of the rumor in an effort to prop up a sagging Bush. (Hatfield dies July 18th, ruled suicide.)
Aug. 6, 2001 - the infamous 10-page Pres. Daily Briefing titled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S.", warning of a hijacking plot, delivered by Tenet to Bush at the Crawford ranch. This is the document that the White House has most stubbornly refused to cough up.
May 2002 - After the first Bush warning revelations and "Bush Knew" headline in N.Y. Post, Condoleeza claims: "We never thought they would use the planes as weapons!"
66. Even after 2 years, when I read the lack of response by NORAD and
the fact that when planes were finally deployed, they were sent from bases many miles away, I get teary eyed and angry at the same time.
From the very first day, this is what my husband and I talked about endlessly, how could NYC and DC not be protected. My heart is breaking for all of those murdered and for the families all over again.
I hope that enough time has passed, that Americans can be more clear-headed and rational about this and leave some of the emotions out of it. (Other than anger at this administration, that is.)
75. So what did Bush do about the warnings? Got HIMSELF "out of harm's way."
In typical Bush fashion, he only cared about himself. He and Cheney ditched DC and spent August out in the boonies. New Yorkers were left to fend for ourselves.
www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=KA01 The Secrets of September 11 The White House is battling to keep a report on the terror attacks secret. Does the 2004 election have anything to do with it?
April 30 — Even as White House political aides plot a 2004 campaign plan designed to capitalize on the emotions and issues raised by the September 11 terror attacks, administration officials are waging a behind-the-scenes battle to restrict public disclosure of key events relating to the attacks.
<snip>Some sources who have read the still-secret congressional report say some sections would not play quite so neatly into White House plans. One portion deals extensively with the stream of U.S. intelligence-agency reports in the summer of 2001 suggesting that Al Qaeda was planning an upcoming attack against the United States—and implicitly raises questions about how Bush and his top aides responded. One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike “in the coming weeks,” the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: “The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.”
The substance of that intelligence report was first disclosed at a public hearing last September by staff director Hill. But at the last minute, Hill was blocked from saying precisely who within the Bush White House got the briefing when CIA director Tenet classified the names of the recipients. (One source says the recipients of the briefing included Bush himself.) As a result, Hill was only able to say the briefing was given to “senior government officials.”
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A15957-2001 Summer Spinning To GOP, Vacation Boosted Bush Agenda; To Democrats, Voters See a Shirk Ethic Aug 29, <2001>
<snip>The White House had announced that Bush would stay at his 1,600-acre ranch in Crawford from Aug. 4 through Labor Day on Sept. 3, a 31-day stretch that would have broken a modern record for a presidential vacation, held by Richard M. Nixon for a 30-day trip to San Clemente, Calif., in 1969. News reports played up the record, and a Gallup Poll found that 55 percent of respondents thought Bush's vacation was too long.
The length of the trip revived old questions about Bush's work ethic, and the poll and the news coverage caused consternation in the White House. Aides said they had planned an ambitious schedule for Bush as long ago as late June, but reporters were not told about it, even after they landed here. The White House, suddenly defensive, took every opportunity to show Bush on the go and even created a "Western White House" logo for the briefing room at Crawford Elementary School. Bush revealed that his ranch had new video conferencing equipment for keeping in touch with his national security team.
www.jacksonholenews.com/Archives/NewsArchive/2001/010815-News.html News story - Aug. 15, 2001 A Working Vacation Vice President Cheney plans to fish, travel during month-long valley sojourn. By Angus M. Thuermer Jr.
Vice President Dick Cheney took time off from his month-long working vacation Monday to outline his plans for August in Jackson Hole and to reflect on "an amazing year."
Cheney, who will live at his Teton Pines home about six miles west of Jackson until Labor Day, defended his energy policy, supported a local decision to limit drilling around the Gros Ventre Wilderness, recalled a life of service in Washington and said his health problems are not affecting his ability to fish for trout on his favorite Western waters.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml Ashcroft Flying High WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001
(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.
In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.
"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.
Edited on Wed Dec-03-03 11:32 AM by seemslikeadream
The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney Greg Palast June 19, 2003
That's right. The "quote from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin' made up.
Lynette Clemetson, New York Times: Did you search the Atlanta Journal Constitution?
I've heard that statement -- it was all over the place.
Greg Palast, Did you check the statement from the floor of the House?
Yes, this is one fact the Times reporter didn't fake: The McKinney "quote" was indeed, all over the place: in the Washington Post, NPR, and needless to say, all the other metropolitian dailies -- everywhere but in the Congresswoman McKinney's mouth.
The big question now is how long Dean can STAY right on this issue, and avoid the fate of McKinney, Meacham, and the others who stood up (not to mention the murky cases of Graham and Cleland).
A challenger has dared to stare the 911-tentacled Obelisk of Managed Terror in the eye. This cannot be swept under the rug for long. One or the other is going to turn into stone.
If (when) the confrontation arises, it will decide whether the 9/11 coverup comes undone, and whether the Dean candidacy goes anywhere. In fact, it will impact on the Democratic campaign overall, as other candidates will be forced to take up positions.
The Myth of 9/11 is the Ring, folks. It gave Sauron the power and it can undo Sauron.
Are you ready for the most serious fight of the last three years?
standard of evidence for claiming Bush knew about 9/11 as Bush used for attacking Iraq (read: no evidence)then Dean should be able to make the claim unequivocally.
Remember Bush set the standard of evidence with the Iraq war and it is only fair that others use that same standard when making claims against Bush.
there's a LOT more evidence suggesting a Bush link than a Saddam link, as you know, but there is thin ice here as you know... let Dean and all the rest of them keep skating (skiing?!) further out, but carefully.
Reading Julie's question, Dean could've easily softballed it ("Yes there will be a thorough investigation, yadda yadda"), but he didn't back down from it at all. Brilliant. I love Dean.
Everything Dean is saying makes me respect him more and more. I totally respected his honesty about wanting to avoid Vietnam and if goes after this - we will all owe him a debt of gratitude. There is no way this can backfire - all he has to say is SHOW ME THE PROOF that you didn't know. They can't do that. Tell Bush to release his August 6th briefing.... why the investigation underfunded and Max Clelan offered a bribe job - why the stonewall. I know this is still too much for people to grasp - that their own president would allow 3,000 American deaths - but that is the truth of the matter and I pray the truth eventually comes out. It will be a Dem landslide - or a rushing the bastille (or White House as it were).
I still love Kucinich but I am loving Dean and am liking Clark and Edwards isn't too bad either. We've got a hell of a team here and I'm very proud.
In March to May 2002, McKinney asked, who knew what when? She also brought up the issue of war profiteering via Carlyle Group, totally solid material.
That is what in effect she was run out of Congress for.
Graham said (starting early this year)
- links to 9/11 hijackers from foreign nationS (plural) yet to be revealed - then his office leaked it was Saudi Arabia and the second, not yet mentioned, is probably Pakistan; Graham interestingly met with Pakistan ISI chief on the MORNING of Sept. 11.
- "most important fact about 9/11 yet to be revealed."
- "maybe in 30 years."
Never entertained notion that Bush or high-level officials might have KNOWN ENOUGH SPECIFICALLY IN ADVANCE TO PREVENT 9/11 (AND HENCE ALLOWED IT THROUGH THEIR INACTION).
Dean, of course, is only "entertaining" it.
Cleland said:
- "Every day we find out this government knew more about these terrorists in advance than it has revealed..."
Cleland's weird connection: On 9/11 he met Gen. Myers (acting Chairman JCS, #3 in chain of command, hence also responsible for air defense) during the entire time from the first attack until the Pentagon was hit. Myers claims he didn't know what was going on until after this meeting (when it was too late) and only called Eberhard to activate NORAD at that point.
Anyway, the big differences from Graham/Cleland:
- Dean's the frontrunner.
- So far, I have yet to hear what DEAN the former governor was doing on 9/11, but I don't think it's likely to be as weird or potentially incriminating as the odd couplings of Myers/Cleland and Graham/Ahmad.
- Dean's has introduced the foreknowledge possibility rather obviously.
52. Not L/MIHOP: Dean's still on point about transparency.
And it's true: At this point, it doesn't matter as much if the theories are true - what matters now is the secretive nature of the WH.
Hopefully our Dem will come in and find the truth, but we can't make LIHOP/MIHOP the issue. Newsmax is tilting the story in that direction, which leads me to believe the next smear is on: Dean is a wacky conspiracy theorist from the fringe.
53. The guy has guts, thats for sure. How predictable that immediately
charges of being a conspiracy nut would emerge. Most earth shattering events in history came because of conspiracies, hell, the idea that 19 hijackers(most of whom were Saudis)were AlQaeda terrorists is a conspiracy theory.
The fact that the evidence is being suppressed is pretty incriminating, why not just come clean if there is nothing to hide?
Maybe at least Joe Sixpack will wake up to that fact.
Dean was questioned on the radio by one of our DUers. Hey, this is really not a bad answer.
SNIP...""The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis," Dean told a caller to Washington, D.C's Diane Rehm Show, according to a transcript obtained by Opinion Journal.com.
"Now, who knows what the real situation is?" the presidential conspiracy theorist cautioned. He then added, "But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not."
I love that they call him the "presidential conspiracy theorist."
Some of the replies in the forum are rabid, some are quite sensible. My thoughts on this: When he started going after Bush, everyone thought he was doomed. Someone has to take the chances to save our country. He is taking the chances, and we are betting it will pay off.
Graham alleges a coverup of pre-9/11 failure By TYLER BRIDGES tbridges@herald.com
DES MOINES - Sen. Bob Graham accused the Bush administration Sunday of covering up its failure to possibly prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by refusing to release the findings of a Graham-led congressional investigation last year.
Graham said on CBS' Face the Nation program that the administration is not withholding the information to protect national security.
''In fact, a great deal of the information which they want to keep classified has already been released, such as in testimony by CIA and FBI officials in public hearings,'' Graham said. ``I think what they are shooting at is to cover up the failures that occurred before September the 11th.''
Releasing the report, he said, could help law enforcement prevent another attack.
In an interview later, Graham said, ``I think what the administration is concerned about is that we have connected the dots. They don't want the American people in one document to know and be able to assess and hold accountable the people who were involved in the lead up to September 11.''
Democrat Clark blames President Bush for Sept. 11 intelligence failures
NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Democrat Wesley Clark on Tuesday blamed President Bush for the intelligence failures that contributed to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"There is no way this administration can walk away from its responsibility for 9-11," Clark told a conference, titled "New American Strategies for Security and Peace." "You can't blame something like this on lower level intelligence officers, however badly they communicated memos with each other. ... The buck rests with the commander in chief, right on George W. Bush's desk."
Later Tuesday, Clark called on Bush to release the details of an intelligence briefing he received from CIA Director George Tenet in August 2001.
<snip>
But his criticism of Bush's handling of intelligence related to the terrorist attacks is some of the harshest since former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Bob Graham, D-Fla., exited the Democratic presidential race.
The Secrets of September 11 The White House is battling to keep a report on the terror attacks secret. Does the 2004 election have anything to do with it? Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball April 30 —
<snip> The White House is delaying the Republican nominating convention, scheduled for New York City, until the first week in September 2004—the latest in the party’s history. That would allow Bush’s acceptance speech, now slated for Sept. 2, to meld seamlessly into 9-11 commemoration events due to take place in the city the next week.
Some sources who have read the still-secret congressional report say some sections would not play quite so neatly into White House plans. One portion deals extensively with the stream of U.S. intelligence-agency reports in the summer of 2001 suggesting that Al Qaeda was planning an upcoming attack against the United States—and implicitly raises questions about how Bush and his top aides responded. One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike “in the coming weeks,” the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: “The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.”
The substance of that intelligence report was first disclosed at a public hearing last September by staff director Hill. But at the last minute, Hill was blocked from saying precisely who within the Bush White House got the briefing when CIA director Tenet classified the names of the recipients. (One source says the recipients of the briefing included Bush himself.) As a result, Hill was only able to say the briefing was given to “senior government officials.”
That issue is now being refought in the context over the full report. The report names names, gives dates and provides a body of new information about the handling of many other crucial intelligence briefings—including one in early August 2001 given to national-security adviser Rice that discussed Al Qaeda operations within the United States and the possibility that the group’s members might seek to hijack airplanes. The administration “working group” is still refusing to declassify information about the briefings, sources said, and has even expressed regret that some of the material was ever provided to congressional investigators in the first place.<more>
‘Buchanan and Press’ for May 8 Read the complete transcript to Thursday’s 3 p.m. show
<snip> PRESS: All right, let’s get to this issue. Now, according to Senator Graham, what did President Bush know and when did he know it about 9/11?
CRAWFORD: Well, before you guys get General Ashcroft to tap my phones here, I want to be clear. He has not leaked anything to me. And he is not leaking anything out of this.
Here is the problem. There’s an 800-page report that the joint House-Senate committee investigating intelligence failures before 9/11 finished in December. They waited for three or four months for the White House intelligence working group to classify or declassify, to tell them how much of that report they can release. And they were shocked, guys, when this task force came back and basically has kept all of it classified, even some of the information that had been made public.
You mentioned earlier the FBI agent who had warned about terrorists going to flight schools. The White House came back and said they wanted to keep that classified, even though it was already public. This is the problem Graham has, that there’s a lot of information in this report. And it’s not easy-it’s not easy for him to talk about, because it’s classified and he can’t get the White House to declassify it.
<snip>
There’s also a commission, an appointed commission, looking into it. The White House won’t even let that commission review the joint House-Senate documents, transcripts of testimony there, for its work. And Tim Roemer, the head of that, is furious about that. There’s a behind-the-scenes battle. But this White House is sitting on this information, refusing to let any of these people talk about what they have learned about what happened leading up to 9/11. <more>
Face The Nation - 5/11/03 WASHINGTON (CBS) BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent
<snip> GRAHAM: Because -- not that there are major national security issues involved; in fact, a great deal of the information which they want to keep classified has already been released, such as in testimony by CIA and FBI officials in public hearings. I think what they are shooting at is to cover up the failures that occurred before September the 11th; even more so, the failure to utilize the information that we have gained to avoid a future September the 11th.
<snip> SCHIEFFER: Senator, if I were writing a newspaper story and putting headlines on top of it right now, I would say: Senator Graham accuses the administration of a cover-up. Is that too strong a term?
GRAHAM: No, that is a very appropriate term.
SCHIEFFER: You think there's been a cover-up, that the administration is not telling us what we need to know to protect ourselves here at home?
GRAHAM: It -- to be specific, a report has been written which provides a very detailed background to the buildup to September the 11th, and then raises policy issues as to how well those lessons have been applied since September the 11th. By continuing to classify that information so that it's not available to the American people, the American people have been denied important information for their own protection, for the protection of the communities. Local agencies have been denied information which would help them be more effective. First responders and the American people do not have the information upon which they can hold the administration and responsible agencies accountable.
Graham: Iraq focus helped Al-Qaeda By Larry Lipman, Palm Beach Post Washington Bureau Wednesday, May 14, 2003
<snip>Graham reiterated comments he made Sunday charging that the Bush administration -- and specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency -- had information that was not acted upon prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, but which the administration will not allow to be released.
"There was information which the administration and its agencies knew before September the 11th that was not acted upon. That same information is available today -- it's not being acted upon today. That failure to act contributed to September the 11th and the failure to act today continues (to put) Americans in a vulnerable circumstance," Graham said. "I want to underscore -- we're not talking solely about history -- we're talking about threats to the American people today."
Graham said he could not reveal more precisely the nature of the information because the administration has insisted on keeping it classified. He has been trying since December to get the administration to release the full version of the joint House-Senate Intelligence committees' investigation into the intelligence failures leading to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Graham accused the administration of engaging in a coverup to protect itself from embarrassing disclosures that he said wouldn't jeopardize national security.
"It has not been released because it is, frankly, embarrassing... embarrassing as to what happened before September the 11th, but maybe even more so the fact that the lessons of September the 11th are not being applied today to reduce the vulnerability of the American people."<more>
Graham: Bush Admin. Blocking 9/11 Report Thu May 8, 5:45 PM ET Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo! By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham accused the Bush administration Thursday of stonewalling on the public release of a congressional report on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"The only reason that delay has occurred is because the administration does not want our report to be available to the American people," said Graham, Florida's senior senator and the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
After months of investigation and a series of congressional hearings last year, the House and Senate Intelligence panels wrapped up their report Dec. 20 and released a summary. The full classified report is still under review at the FBI (news - web sites) and CIA (news - web sites), which are trying to determine whether any disclosure of information might pose a risk to national security and should remain secret.
Graham, who chaired the committee at the time the report was completed, said he thinks the White House is behind the delay.
"They don't want this report to come out," he said. "There has not been in my memory, and I would question whether there has been in modern American history, an administration that was so committed to secrecy as this Bush administration." <more>
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
