Skip to main content

View Diary: Richard Clarke alleges CIA Coverup in run-up to 9-11 (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  9/11 CT is forbidden here (0+ / 0-)

    and for damn good reason.

    You want to talk about incompetence and the scrambling to cover up that incompetence? Knock yourself out. But, as described above, LIHOP/MIHOP? Trollworthy, insane, and banworthy.

    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

    by raptavio on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 06:17:20 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why would LIHOP (3+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      magnetics, MixedContent, Vinnie Vegas
      Hidden by:

      be considered insane?

      I understand the banworthy part, as Kos does not allow the discussion of it here. But why would you call it insane?

      Eisenhower's most powerful statement in warning about the disastrous rise of misplaced power in the Military Industrial Complex was that, "We should take nothing for granted."

      If you take it for granted that all members of the CIA are patriotic, incorruptible, and working for the protection of our country, then yes, LIHOP is thinking outside that box. But it's not insane.

      We're not arguing over whether or not our federal government, including the clandestine parts of it, are corrupt. We're arguing over the question, "How corrupt are they?" Since we're comfortable with the possibility that the CIA tried to recruit Hazmi and Mihdhar, is it such a stretch to consider the possibility that they did recruit them and that they either got burned or that they allowed themselves to be burned?

      For these high level Al Qaeda terrorists to get in and out of the country and use their own names and credit cards and to attend flight school means they knew they had impunity. Is that not worth discussing in this important forum?

      •  Boom. (0+ / 0-)

        Yeah, I know you replied to me. I'll remove my HR if sufficient other people add them.

        I despise 9/11 CT with a passion because it always proceeds from one of two things:

        1) Demonstrably false information;
        2) Argument from ignorance.

        Your argument's the latter. It's completely speculation, founded on no evidence, whose sole defense is that it cannot be disproven (as any logician knows, one can't prove a negative).

        It also flies in the face of Hanlon's razor.

        A LIHOP conspiracy would require the active complicity of at minimum dozens of American people in the deaths of thousands of American people. A conspiracy of that size and magnitude that has endured for ten years without coming unraveled? Does not pass the credulity test. Without evidence - and strong evidence - you're just another crackpot CT loon.

        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

        by raptavio on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:48:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Robert Graham has been mentioned (0+ / 0-)

          in the comments here, and as Senator he co-chaired the Joint Investigation by Congress of the intelligence failures and then wrote a book about their findings that went into the aspects that had been withheld from the public, especially about the Saudi government connection to the hijackers referred to by Richard Clarke. The book I'm referring to is Intelligence Matters and isn't a novel.

          There has been an enormous amount written about this issue, the allowing of these 2 terrorists who became coordinators of the hijackers who arrived later into the country. The issue of their phone calls to and from an NSA monitored Al Qaeda safe house is also astonishing. So I recommend looking up the hijackers by name, and here's a link that might be worth looking at:

          A Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Related to the September 11 Attacks

          Chapter Five
          Two September 11 Hijackers: Khalid
          Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi

          The issue Richard Clarke raises is why the CIA allowed Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi into the country knowing they were high level Al Qaeda operatives. That they knew it is not in debate.

          •  When you have evidence (0+ / 0-)

            as to the why, let me know.
            Until then...

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:26:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am an Eisenhower pacifist. (0+ / 0-)

              I believe some parts of our government and our clandestine services work for the industry of war.

              •  I don't care what you can believe. (0+ / 0-)

                Show me what you can prove.

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:34:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I can tell who someone works for (0+ / 0-)

                  by seeing who benefits from their work.

                  The Incompetence Theory, that our intelligence leadership was so stupid that the Military Industrial Complex had a field day in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't hold up for me as well as the theory that this particular area of our intelligence services works for the benefit of those contractors. I just think it's more likely that they're venal than that they're stupid in the Stupid or Venal argument.

                  Is that proof? No, but none of us here is in a position to prove what we believe about these issues. I speculate that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was in North Carolina going to a Baptist college because he was training at our Jihadist terrorist training camps near there. I think it's more likely that he graduated from terrorist training and then went into the Jihad than that he went from Muslim radicalization to Baptist conversion and then went into the Jihad. That's just speculation on my part. Maybe when he gets into a courtroom we'll see more evidence about that.

                  The lawsuit by 9/11 victims families against Saudi government officials ended with the Saudis saying their support of Al Qaeda was part of their work as government officials and therefore they can't be sued. Do you think that means they were supporting Al Qaeda, or do you think it's a legal grey area and therefore unproven?

        •  I think you mean Occam's razor. (0+ / 0-)

          The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

          by magnetics on Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 10:42:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong. On Quite A Few Levels Too. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Linda Wood

          I have this unique mix of political science degree/law degree/15 year casino employee/putative casino owner/professional gambler (and a quite successful one at that).

          I have seen enough corruption, hell, LA County is a giant kleptocracy, our system of justice has been broken for some time now, to just not believe anything our government tells us.

          Here's a friendly reminder, courtesy of Steven Soderbergh:

          I mean, if things are this broken at the municipal level, how do think things are the higher up the food chain you go? Bill Clinton tried to clean up the mess as best he could, and he not only got impeached for it, the Powers That Be torqued the 2000 election (and it was an obvious fix in FL) so they could undo everything Clinton did. That included ramping up the military industrial complex.

          Let me toss this one out, and this is definitely within the TOS: if Al Gore is President, there is no 9/11. It's just that fucking simple.

          •  Evidence or GTFO. (0+ / 0-)

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 06:43:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Study History, And Not The People Who Write It (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Linda Wood

              It's the other way around...the people you rely on for information, generally speaking, corporate media, are not trustworthy.

              I'll leave you with this little tidbit before bidding adieu...remember the Warren Commission report, and all the flaws in it? When the flaws were pointed out, and (former CIA Director) Allen Dulles was asked about it, his response was "the American people do not read".

              Yeah, that's how you get to the truth of a matter-out a career professional spook on the commission.

              Have a nice life.

              •  argumentem ad ignorantiam (0+ / 0-)

                Is not evidence.

                Saying one should mistrust the official line is all well and good. Making the leap that one should give any tinfoil hat theory equal weight from that point is illogical and irrational.

                As is anyone making that leap.

                We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                by raptavio on Sat Aug 13, 2011 at 04:34:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site