Can someone explain?

I admit that I am not fully versed in 9/11 issues. I am curious though.

What reasons would Bush have to do this? Why would our government do such a thing?

Can someone explain it in english please?

I am open and not looking for an argument, I am sincerely looking for answers.

Thanks. :hi:

and no one can explain?

I can tell you why I think he ignored warnings of Al Qaeda attacking. There weren't any specifics on an attack in America (not even the 6 Aug PDB has specifics on an attack), and I think Bush thought whatever Al Qaeda did, America could take. And he was thinking something like more embassy bombings or another attempt at a warship in the region. "Bring it on," in other words.

But I don't think that's what you're asking for.

How God Damn dumb do you think Bush was, for the Christ's sake!

If you knew an attack was about to take place inside of the US, and also knew that the "USS the Sullivans" had been attacked in a failed attempt in January 2000, but then when the al Qaeda terrorists missed this target they went right back after the Cole at the exact same location in Yemen 9 months later, there was no way Bush would not realize that after the failed attempt on the World Trade Center in 1993, that they were not going back after the World Trade Center Towers again, unless he was in a catatonic vegetated state. (Well maybe that explains it)

When Ramzi Yousef was arrested at an al Qaeda safe house in 1995, that was the dead giveaway that the original attack on the WTC Towers in 1993 had been an al Qaeda planned operation, particularly when Yousef, on his way back to trail in the US, said as his plane passed over the WTC Towers, next time we, meaning al Qaeda, will not miss.

And what did George Tenet tell Bush in July and August 2001. He told Rice and Clarke on July 10, 2001 that an al Qaeda attack was just about to occur inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. Are we to believe he had this horrific information and never told Bush or that Rice, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld who all had this same information also never told Bush.

That is not even remotely believable!

If that were the case then why did Tenet lie to the 9/11 commission and say he never talked to Bush in August when Roemer, asked him, “If you knew about this huge al Qaeda attack in August 2001, knew it would kill thousands of Americans, then what did he tell the President of the United States in August, 2001”.

Tenet said he had not talked to the President in August. He said he was in Washington DC and the President was in Crawford. Then Roemer asked him why he did not pick up the phone and call the President and give him this horrific information. Tenet said he had not picked up the phone and called Bush, but said he was unable to explain why he had not.

But Bill Harlow, CIA spokesman said Tenet had lied to the 9/11 Commission right Tenet finished his testimony and said Tenet had flown down to Crawford on August 17 and had seen the President in Washington DC on August 31, 2001 and 6 more times in September before 9/11. The White House web site said Tenet had a 6 hour meeting with the President on August 24, 2001. This is just after Tenet finds out on Augsut 23, 2010 that Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US, and knew they were here in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack and also found out on August 23, 2001 that Moussaoui had been arrested for being a terrorist connected to Bin Laden and attempting to learn how to fly a B747 without so much as a private pilot’s license.

None of this passes even your basic smell test. What do these people think, that the Americans people are all completely stupid. Well maybe they are right!

See my Journal for additional details on all of this.

If Bush, as Governor, was willing to kill people for (maybe) killing another person...140+ times while in office, what's the penalty for 3000+ people dying because you ignored warnings of an impending attack?

I think we know what the prize is if you cover for their criminal incompetence - the Medal of Freedom!

I construe, by the way you word the question "Why would our government do such a thing?", that you are a skeptic of sorts. And that is ok. At least you are polite.

When it comes to skeptics like yourself I don't get into "theories" or the "whys". But to put my point of view into context I will answer your questions with some questions.

Do you believe any of the official explanations (plural) given by the Cheney administration about the reasons for invading Iraq? If not, why do you think they invaded and why do you think they would lie about such a thing?

You're happy to speculate when it's people who agree with you, but if it's someone ready to test your speculation against the evidence, common sense, and logic, you stay quiet.

Think about this.

Did you guys send him to Siberia???

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

VACATION?

People usually take them in the summer. Duh.

you can't use the cliche'd and trite catchphrase and label me as a theorist. You CAN use it, but it's really just an empty chasm of nothingness unless I actually mention a theory.

Already, all that I've insinuated thus far is that I don't trust the government's explanation and you have declared that I harbor illogical ideas. I'm not new to this. I've seen these things escalate very quickly into abusive insult games. I try to avoid that. Some people enjoy flame wars as a form of entertainment. Not me.

the answer is 1 word: POWER.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/24/russia.comment

winnah!

Putin's war against the Chechens. It was used to give the old KGB now FSB and the military establishment a new lease on life a new reason to exist and be funded by society without too many questions asked even though the cold war was over. It's a protection racket: it doesn't work unless the victims are terrorized.

Welcome to DU, szatmar!

:hi:

decided in their document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to get the American people to go along with their idea of empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

The "perps" advertised their plot ahead of time.

doesn't know the difference between a plot and a simple statement. :shrug:

that's you, dude.

Given what much of the same crowd got by with during the Nixon, Reagan & Poppy Bush administrations without being called to account, why wouldn't they think they could get by with this? Look at the war crimes they've sanctioned since 9/11 and no one is being held responsible.

Sure, there might be a few nuts like me who question it, but the PNCA crowd can always count of there being more people like you who stick their heads in the sand and can't conceive of any prominient American or government official acting in such a treasonous fashion even if that person has much to gain from it. After all we're the "good guys" and even neocons like Dick Cheney have nothing but the welfare of the country at heart.

''evidence'' where there simply isn't any. When you come up with a smoking gun, I'm all ears.

If the american people didn't tear them to shreds after that they rightly concluded they were free to do anything like kill anybody anytime for any reason.

let us know.

and you have your answer.

It's kinda silly to claim that many people or groups can benefit from something without having a hand it it. If "cui bono" was the only consideration one had to make, the police would just arrest everyone who benefitted from a crime. Of course, the missing piece for the "cui bono" puzzle is actual evidence.

Are you saying they fell on their sword and invaded Iraq to protect us? Please! You seem too intelligent to be that naive. They got their foothold in the last great oil reserves, trillions for their buddies in the military/energy/security complex, a major dismantling of our rights, emasculation of the mainstream press, deficits so enormous they are sure to ultimately end any and all government assistance in the near future... The list of neocon benefits stretches to the moon. And from the look of things, Obama is keeping much of their handiwork in place. They had two (questionable) terms to change the world and create a new political reality. Mission accomplished.

And had it not been for 9/11, they would have seized on something else.

The financial panic last year aided the Obama campaign, since Democrats are generally viewed as better at dealing with economic issues. For example, a common refrain of the Clinton campaign was "It's the economy stupid.". So would I be correct in assuming you believe that the Democratic Party engineers economic crises to win elections? No, of course not.

I don't believe, for example, that Rep. Wilson is some deep cover agent planted for the purpose of demonstrating Republicans are assholes. But he certainly provided a timely and convenient case in point.

I don't think that Katrina was engineered to clear poor people out of New Orleans either. It was exploited for that purpose.

None of that money was meant for us, of course. It was for his patrons in the defense, rebuilding, and most importantly the oil industry.

Business interests dictate foreign policy. If you want to find out how much, read the Pulitzer Prize winning history of oil, THE PRIZE by Daniel Yergin. When oil companies want something, they don't ask senators and presidents for favors, they give orders. You might also read OVERTHROW by Steven Kinzer on why the US overthrew various other countries governments, including the secular, democratically elected one in Iran in 1953.

More on motive for Iraq, Afghan (& now Pakistan) War:

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2009/08/war-on-terror-shift-to-pakistan-over.html

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2009/02/were-fighting-to-hold-afghanistan.html

On Iraq's oil:

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/03/oil-too-cheap-if-no-iraq-war-says-oil.html

a number of post hoc ergo propter hoc attacks on Bush (I hate the guy but this is an issue of bad logic)

The most common is:
Bush wants a war (in Iraq)
So he creates a terrorist attack
Which gets him the support and aggression to start the war

Others revolve around money allegedly made, keeping the population in line, boosting his approval rating, passing this or that law, etc.

They all suffer from a singe serious logical flaw. Benefiting from an event does not mean you caused the event. I am sure if you think about a person in your life, you can think of a half dozen people or so who would 'benefit' in one way or another from their death. Of course if that person were killed those people might be suspects... but not all of them (and quite possibly none of them) are the actual murderer.

When you engage people who make this argument in debate it very quickly boils down to 'I hate Bush', 'He lied''He got us into a war', '9-11 helped get us into the war', 'Therefore he must have done it'. Which is no argument at all.

Hope that helps.