Daily Kos

Cheney and the Yemen Safe House

Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:55:52 PM PDT

Early 1996-October 1998: US Tracks bin Laden's Satellite Phone Calls    

Complete 911 Timeline

           During this period, bin Laden and Mohammed Atef, his military commander, use a satellite phone provided by a friend to direct al-Qaeda's operations. Its use is discontinued two months after a US missile strike against bin Laden's camps on August 20, 1998, when an unnamed senior official boasts that the US can track his movements through the use of the phone. [Sunday Times, 3/24/02]

Records show "Britain was at the heart of the terrorist's planning for his worldwide campaign of murder and destruction." 260 calls were made to 27 phone numbers in Britain. The other countries called were Yemen (over 200 calls), Sudan (131), Iran (106), Azerbaijan (67), Pakistan (59), Saudi Arabia (57), a ship in the Indian Ocean (13), the US (6), Italy (6), Malaysia (4), and Senegal (2). "The most surprising omission is Iraq, with not a single call recorded." [Sunday Times, 3/24/02]

People and organizations involved: al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Mohammed Atef

Pay special attention to those 200 calls to Yemen, because some of those calls were vital to tracing Bin-Laden to the African Embassy bombings, the Cole bombings, and to 9/11.  

It involves a 'safe house' that the NSA was monitoring, and calls made from this safe house are now being used as a justification for jettisoning our Fourth Amendment rights.

Late August 1998: Captured Al-Qaeda Operatives Leads US to Safe House Phone Number

     Complete 911 Timeline

           An al-Qaeda operative involved in the bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi is captured and interrogated by the FBI. The FBI learns the telephone number of a safe house in Yemen, owned by bin Laden associate Ahmed al-Hada, hijacker Khalid Almihdhar's father-in-law [Die Zeit, 10/1/02; Newsweek, 6/2/02]

US intelligence also learns that the safe house is an al-Qaeda "logistics center," used by agents around the world to communicate with each other and plan attacks. [Newsweek, 6/2/02]

It is later revealed that bin Laden called the safe house dozens of times from 1996 to 1998 (the two years he had a traced satellite phone). [Sunday Times, 3/24/02; Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02]

The NSA and CIA jointly plant bugs inside the house, tap the phones, and monitor visitors with spy satellites. [Mirror, 6/9/02]

The NSA later records Khalid Almihdhar and other hijackers calling this house, including calls from the US. In late 1999, the phone line will lead the CIA to an important al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia. [Newsweek, 6/2/02] It appears al-Qaeda continues to use this phone line until the safe house is raided by the Yemeni government in February 2002. [CBS News, 2/13/02]

Who is Khalid Almidhar?

He was, allegedly, one of the hijackers aboard Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.  He was the son-in-law of the owner of the Yemen safe house.  And he rented a room from an FBI informant.

A former landlord of two of the September 11 hijackers was an FBI informant at the time, knowledgeable sources confirm to CNN.

The two hijackers, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, lived in San Diego in the fall of 2000 and were taken in by a Muslim man after he met them at a local Islamic center. The landlord had been an informant for the FBI, supplying information about the Islamic terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

The revelation, first reported by Newsweek, focuses renewed attention on possible mistakes made by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence prior to September 11. Newsweek reported that the FBI informant lived in close quarters with the two future hijackers.

"The FBI concedes that a San Diego case agent appears to have been at least aware that Saudi visitors were renting rooms in the informant's house," Newsweek reported.

You can learn more about Almidhar and the Yemen connection, here.

So, let's recap before we move forward.  The FBI captured a man involved in the 1998 African Embassy bombings.  He told them about a safe house in Yemen owned by Khalid Almidhar's father-in-law. The intelligence community placed bugs in the house (CIA), used satellites to monitor visitors (National Reconnaissance Office), and they traced their phone calls (NSA).

 Khalid Almidhar moved to San Diego, (after being monitored at a terrorist meeting in Malaysia and tailed by the CIA), where he moved into an apartment of an FBI informant.  The FBI case officer admits to knowing about the Saudi tenants living in his informant's house.

This informant was not allowed to testify before Congress or the 9/11 Commission.  

Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence that might have linked Saudi Arabia to the Sept. 11 hijackers...

...The cover-up charge stems from the FBI's refusal to allow inquiry staff to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of Sept. 11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.

In his book "Intelligence Matters," Graham said an FBI official wrote to Goss and Graham in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source. Nor did the administration agree to allow the FBI to serve subpoena or a notice of deposition on the source."

In his telephone news conference, Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."

Now, there is more smoke involving these San Diego hijackers.  They received money, indirectly, from the wife of Prince Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States.

Findings from an inquiry by the House-Senate Joint Intelligence Committee suggest evidence indicates money from the Saudi Arabian government could have made its way to the two hijackers through two Saudi students when they were in California.

There is some evidence that the students received a payment through the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States, according to the inquiry.

Now, Dick Cheney made the following argument at the Heritage Foundation today:

"There are no communications more important to the safety of the United States than those related to al Qaeda that have one end in the United States," Cheney said. "If we'd been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon."

"They were in the United States, communicating with al Qaeda associates overseas, but we didn't know they were here plotting until it was too late," he said.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin dismissed Cheney's argument as "the kind people like to make sometimes when they're trying to cover their tracks."

Russ is probably more correct than he realizes.  Setting all conspiracy theories aside, we already know that the NSA monitored Almidhar's phone calls to the Yemen safe house.  Whether they had a warrant to do that is irrelevent.  They did it.  It's on the public record that they did it.

Ergo, Dick Cheney's entire argument is flawed and misleading.  

Our failure to apprehend Almidhar prior to 9/11 may have many causes, including the lack of communication between the NSA, NRO, CIA, and the FBI.  But, it has nothing to do with a need for speed in getting a warrant to wiretap his communications with Yemen.  

And, given the above set of facts, no FISA judge would have denied a warrant.  

Tags: Dick Cheney, CIA, FBI, NRO, NSA, Khalid AlMidhar, 9-11 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 82 comments

  •  Good work, BooMan. Recommended. (4.00 / 13)

    They almost never deny warrants as far as I can tell.  Especially in the current climate.  It's as if the lawbreaking is such a habit, they can't not do it.

    I have credible evidence that Dick "Dick" Cheney has made the wrong decision, and is about to be hit in a way that could be devastating from the point of view of the Vice President.

    Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

    by ubikkibu on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:56:04 PM PDT

  •  Seems like the FBI, CIA & NSA (4.00 / 10)

    were working pretty well together, despite all those "walls".

    The prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad; For the multitude of thy iniquity, and the great hatred...

    by Tirge Caps on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 02:00:28 PM PDT

    •  Tirge Caps (4.00 / 26)

      You're right. And the CIA and the FBI and Richard Clarke and former Senator Gary Hart were all setting off alarm bells of the impending attack.

      The Sept. 11th attack could have been prevented. Whether due to incompetence or nefarious negligence to allow for a Project for a New American Century "Pearl Harbor" we'll probably never know.

      There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. S. Holmes

      by Carnacki on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 04:20:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More bricks for the wall (none / 1)

           It's a little off topic, and way late in the thread, but this "wall" thing is interesting.
               There is a FISA Court of Review, a secret appeals court, and ,surprise, they only met once. They Opined on Nov18, 2002 and most summaries (google FISA + Nov18,2002) say that it was important in that it reversed a previous FISA court ruling and the result was hundreds of searches could go forward, and two that were denied were then allowed. And that this was the only time it met. And that it's actions can or maybe are appealable to a secret session of the Supreme Court.....This seems to me to be when they broke the last resistance to the warrants altogether, i/e. it was then even easier to obtain warrants. But that's not what's bugging me, it's that there is a wingnut article that goes on and on how this was The Event that finally broke down that wall.(And ronnie missed it.)
             This sounds like BS and I think it's spin to divert attention away from the 911 coverup, such as the topic of this diary. It may be nothing, but why holler so loud about something the other articles of the day weren't even mentioning. Somebody with a bigger brain than mine should take a peek. I'm just saying...
  •  You Mean Cheney is Lying? (4.00 / 30)

    In an effort to hid the fact that he's really scheming for political power, has been all along, and doesn't give a damn about terrorism beyond its usefulness in acquiring power?

    You don't say.

  •  I do believe... (4.00 / 6)

    I have a bottle of california wine I have been saving when this administration gets what it deserves..I do believe this is the year..
    •  This is a fascinating diary (none / 0)

      I have a question. I cannot find a source for the assertion that NSA recorded domestic/foriegn calls with Almihdhar.

      Your point, that NSA recorded calls from the US to the Yemen safe house is made in this quote from your diary:  

      The NSA later records Khalid Almihdhar and other hijackers calling this house, including calls from the US.

      It looks like you are sourcing this quote to a 6/2/02 Newsweek article. I cannot find this in the linked article.

      I did a search and I can find this assertion in the author's narrative about 911 from the timeline you sourced (he also attributes this assertion to the Newsweek article), but I cannot find it in the 6/2/02 Newsweek article or any news articles.

      I also find the same assertion will the same narrative in this timeline without a  source to back it up. In this timeline the author refers to the Congressional Record as confirmation of NSA recording the calls, but it's not stated there.

      The Congressional Record actually states the opposite.

      Consistent with its focus on communications abroad, NSA adopted a policy that avoided intercepting the communications between individuals in the United States and foreign countries.

      NSA adopted this policy even though the collection of such communications is within its mission and it would have been possible for NSA to obtain FISA Court authorization for such collection. NSA Director Hayden testified to the Joint Inquiry that NSA did not want to be perceived as targeting individuals in the United States and believed that the FBI was instead responsible for conducting such surveillance.
      REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

      BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

      I would love to have a source for this assertion if you know of one. I could be missing something here and would appreciated your thoughts.

    •  Booman, Bob Graham (none / 0)

      is absolutely right.

      That part is the smoking gun, as Graham says.  So where is this fellow Abdussattar Shaikh now?  He should be interviewed.

      Why did the 911 commission let this go past them?

  •  Hmmm (4.00 / 16)

    The WAPO makes it clear that it was the FBI which didn't want Abdussattar to testify:

    The FBI, which is seeking to find sources and build relationships in Arab communities, has resisted a request from Congress to bring Shaikh before the intelligence panel to testify.

    "If informants think they have to go up in front of Congress and testify, we will never get sources," a Justice Department official said.

    What makes this odd of course is that Shaikh was no longer an informant and of course that this was 9/11, not some burglary incident!

    Not only that, but his handler, Steven Butler, testified behind closed doors.  So any information Shaikh would've given would've been private.  And of course if Shaikh has nothing of substance to reveal, why all the hesitation?

    Even weirder is that after Shaikh was identified as an FBI informer, he "publically objected to that characterization".  I'm curious whether or not Shaikh WAS an informer and exactly what the nature of his relationship to the FBI was.

    Not to mention all the FBI rigamarole saying Shaikh was a professor at San Diego State and elsewhere, when in reality he was determined to NOT be a professor (or anything else) at those institutions.  Why lie about an informer's background if you're not even going to use his testimony?

    Not only that, but at least two witnesses say they saw Mohammed Atta on several occasions over at Shaikh's house, which is a different kettle of fish than renting out a few rooms to some innocuous students.  

    What I've NEVER seen covered is, if Shaikh wasn't a professor at ANY school, then what exactly was his profession?

    And of course god almighty lets not forget about Sam "Rami" Koutchesfahani (including Heaven's Gate of all things).

    Oh but 9/11 is quite a fish...

    Pax

    Night and day you can find me Flogging the Simian

    by Soj on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 02:32:50 PM PDT

  •  Excellent work Booman! Recommended! (4.00 / 8)

    Sorry I've been away from the Tribune for a while... been working too hard... :(

    Dudehisattva...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 03:38:11 PM PDT

  •  Cheney lies through his snarling teeth... (4.00 / 15)

    ...as always.

    He's pathological liar, a cowardly chickenhawk, and a war profiteer making mondo bucks off the blood of American soldiers.

    This is the best America can do for the vice-president of the United States?  If we had a sane public discourse, this creep would be in jail for life.

    Let's not even get into his boss-puppet, George W., the feckless preppy mama's boy who fancies himself king.

    JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

    by chumley on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 03:57:19 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, you're right (4.00 / 2)

      but in all of this, Paul Wolfowitcz seems to have been forgotten.

      I wonder what his role was in regard to 911, and his relationship to Israel?

      Was it just that pac group, the AIPAC or PNAC?

      I forget so easily.....

  •  and not a single call to Iraq... (4.00 / 9)

    Fuck this adminstration.
  •  Eventually we will take the country back (4.00 / 3)

    Eventually we will take this country back from the NeoCON Death Cult and whether they are in office or not, and whether they are among the living or not, we will find out why BushCo has been stonewalling any real investigation into 9/11. I'm not saying they are directly the cause of 9/11. Rather, they may be covering for some of their friends (like Prince Bandar). Oh and by the way, after Abramoff pleased guilty this week, there wasn't a paper shredder to be found in any office supply store within fifty miles of the Beltway.
    •  No calls to Turkey either (4.00 / 13)

      which is one among many reasons why I have always thought Sibel Edmonds discovered evidence of the plot in Azerbaijani, and not Turkish as is widely assumed.  

      In fact, it was not the safe house in Yemen that initially linked Bin-Laden to the Africa bombings, but a telephone in Baku that linked bin-laden to the Yemen safe house.  

      Also, Zawahiri set up a rather large cell of Egyptian Islamic Jihad in Baku, which did not seem to be disrupted by Zawahiri's extended detention by Russuan intelligence agencies.  

      So, the mystery grows deeper.

      •  I can't explain (4.00 / 2)

        the references to Italy and the Philippines.

        Is thre a more comprehensive list available regarding the 911 timeline, including the flights to Yemen and the flight scools in Fla?

        There should be a comprehensive list of a warplan, top to bottom, as I suppose this group would very circumspect.

        •  I don't understand your question but (none / 1)

          •  I guess I'm trying to see if there is a connection (4.00 / 2)

            between the Neocon actions (WHIG) and the terrorists.

            See if I can find  parallel patterns between the two groups, and if there are any connections, even if they are a degree or two apart.

            You never know....

            •  Have you ever thought (4.00 / 2)

              why is Pakistan a key ally? After all why a country that recognized Taliban till September 10th, became key ally on Sept 11th. Sure Pakistan caught number 3 guy 59th time but how come all the number 3s end up in Pakistan. If you get the truth and love intrigue, suspense, geopolitical chess game, you may give up fiction. By all accounts, neofascists have made a metaphysical blunder in their calculations but they will not admit.
              Why why why Pakistan which had a nuclear walmart is not the target but Iran is?

              I would let you do the math or connecting the dots part.

              Eyes cannot see what mind cannot perceive

              by Ruffledfeather on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 06:48:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i'm a bird-brain. (none / 0)

                i eat dots;  i don't connect them.  Can you either "do the math" or put enough bread crumbs on the trail so even a little twit like me can follow along?  Just a favor for another feathered friend?

                Two war crimes make 'the right', not 'a right'. Defeat the liar John McCain.

                by Yellow Canary on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 11:00:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Pakistani jehadis do (none / 0)

                  the coercive part of the neocon US foreign policy while US provides them aid, security from arch rival India, political and nuclear equality (which is another idiotic fake game ) with India on the world stage and protection from bad press.
                  Neocons and Pakistani Jehadis are supposedly partners and think that each can use the other to its advantage. So far neocons are big losers because they are morons and have little understanding of how they have been suckered into this grandiose new world order with offer of help from Pakistani Jehadi assets. They were taken in by the slogan that "Pakistan and US won the cold war together" and they should come together again to establish new world order. Even Bush acknowledged that talks with Pakistan started before 9/11. Bush family has long ties with Islamic forces since 1980s.
                  The irony is that in 80s this relationship helped US and Pakistan both, where as in the last few years Pakistan has gained considerable ground in its cherished goal of establishing Islam as primary religion of the world, and neocons have been unwitting tools in their hands seriously jeopardizing US leadership in the world.

                  Eyes cannot see what mind cannot perceive

                  by Ruffledfeather on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:40:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah, well, no one ever said the Nazis were smart (none / 0)

                    They are also undermining their position in regard to dealing with China and Russia.

                    How they intended to keep superpower status is beyond me -- any fool could see there schemes would play right into the hands of the Asians.

                    But then, we aren't exactly speaking of a brain trust in the neo con world of think tank now, are we ? ? ?

                  •  Also (none / 0)

                    I believe they think Pakistan is really their friend, and nothing can go wrong.

                    They see what they want to see, even when the lies are to there own detriment.

                    Iraq is lost, no doubt, but they are seriously undermining their own dream of a unilateral superpower by dealing with Pakistan, et al and failing to understand why they are being played.

                    The greatest threat is that China or Russia will in turn use the Arab states against a  severely weakened US military, to test US defenses, and Cheney won't be able to defend his monarchy, and the US will be reduced to a minority status.

                    But I think at his level of insanity, it doesn't matter -- he's really just a thug crime boss at heart.

                    It strikes me that everthing the Neocons are doing to America, the Asians are doing to the Neocons.

                    And the Asians are smarter, Dick.

                    So what do you do Dick, how do you maintain power, and money, when your "friends" are playing you, bleeding you dry? The terrorists hate you, and the Asians do, too.

                    How has your little terrorist foray played in to the hands of China and Russia?

                    If the Chinese superpower gains the upper hand, all your wealthy donors stand to loose a lot of money, and they won't be happy. They'll treat America, and your wealthy friends, like you treat Democrats.

                    They're a lot like you Dick, but smarter...

                  •  rather simplistic (none / 0)

                    When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan, concerned about their western border, convinced the Saudis to help them out. The Saudis, being no friends of the godless Russians, were eager to please. They were sure that the Soviets were making moves on the Middle East. They provided millions of dollars to ISI (Pakistan's intel sevice), which was then funnelled to the Mohajedin guerrilas in Afghanistan.

                    The Saudis, for their part, also wanted to shore up their version of Islam in that area as a way to keep Iran in line.

                    Soon the CIA also was involved as well, running operations from within Pakistan. Long story short: eventually, the Soviets fled North, and shortly after, their puppet Najibullah was overthrown. Much infighting ensued and the Taliban – favoured by the Saudis (and ISI, which was getting a lot of cash from the Saudis for them, but also happened to be backing Muslim fundamentalists for actions against India in the Kashmir region) soon gained control over most of the country. During this time, many in the Clinton admin also favoured the Taliban, though there were some who criticised them.

                    One Afghani – Ahmed Shah Masoud – fought the Taliban for years. He managed to scrape together a small bit of support from the CIA from time to time but he was not trusted by the admin. For one thing, he was an ethnic Tajik, and it wasn't felt that he could properly hold together the country if the Taliban fell. He also had relations with Iran. Oh, and he smuggled dope (but hey – he was trying to fund an insurrection). It's sad, really, because he always warned the US about the fundamentalists and the Arab terrorists they were giving refuge to. He specifically noted that al Queda's aims were to attack American interests.

                    Somewhere in there, the Taliban arrested and beat up Hamid Karzai, who had been a Taliban supporter. He escaped and fled to Pakistan.

                    Anyhoo, the CIA did help out Massoud a bit, though it was really only to use his forces in an attempt to kidnap Bin Laden. They tried to keep all of this secret from ISI, so as not to damage relations with them.

                    When Musharraf took power in a coup, the US was initially not very pleased about it. But they backed him eventually because he had nukes and they wanted to keep things settled vis-à-vis the India thing. He also was being brought around on the issue of the Taliban. He put an old comrade, General Mahmoud Ahmed, in charge of ISI in an attempt to establish control over the agency.

                    But i could go on for days about this. My point is that there is a lot more to this than just "Saudi Arabia & Pakistan are bad". It's much bigger than that.

                    "They're telling us something we don't understand"
                    General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

                    by subtropolis on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 09:10:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  my theory (none / 1)

                esp. since Porter Goss admitted that that is probably where OBL is...Pakistan is probably the only country where he can hide safely and the Bushies are keeping him tucked away there for whatever reason, because he has been a longtime valuable CIA asset, so he can make more videos on the eves of elections or whatever. Were he to go anywhere else the government might actually find him, and then we would have to bomb them.

                i think they're attacking me cause i'm awesome. how's that??

                by missreporter on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 04:56:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Neocons, a sleeping tiger (4.00 / 2)

      We'll take it back, but it will take vigilance to keep it.  The neocons aren't going away.  They will remain - a sleeping tiger - so to speak.

      Look at the resumes of the worst of the bunch now in power and you'll see that neocons lurk in the tall grass until they are back in power.  Then they strike, quickly, with practiced, premeditated schemes.

      "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

      by joanneleon on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:54:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The tigers will own our grasses until ... (4.00 / 2)

         ... we shut down the world-wide black/gray market in weaponry  ("Rummie!  Dick!  And the two Georges!  What a nice surprise!").What we see is just the occasional flash of an ear, what we hear is just the quick draw of breath as these beasts paddle from shore to shore in the dark underwaters of international intrigue.  It's a world-wide shake-down racket, and the US is up to it's fur-rimmed eye balls in it.  Eh?

        Two war crimes make 'the right', not 'a right'. Defeat the liar John McCain.

        by Yellow Canary on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 11:09:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  From prison (none / 0)

        Can a neocon strike back from prison?

        All that money laundering, off shore accounts, under the table bribes, and oh gosh, maybe there is a conspiracy somewhere, too...

        See, a terrorist attack to consolidate powers is one thing, but upsetting the balance and bleeding the US military and brain trust is another.

        The Chinese see this, why can't the neocons?

        Because the Chinese are their Friends, dontcha know.....

  •  yay Russ! (4.00 / 2)

    I love that Senator!

    So, this was just an extra excuse for my friend Scotty the Duck (or Puffy McMoonface to some of you) to say the words "9/11" but he said something recently like "Pres. Bush had to start protecting the American people after 9/11"

    And all I thought was - well obviously he didn't protect us BEFORE 9/11. It's rare the Bush admin admits shit like that. And it is SO TRUE.

  •  wow (none / 0)

    that was brilliant.  
  •  On the Money BooMan (none / 0)

    Mathews just quoted Cheney.

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 04:49:26 PM PDT

  •  I <3 Booman (4.00 / 2)

    You are amazing, and yes, the issue isn't the listening, it is the coordination, and until that changes MORE information isn't going to help, it will make things worse.

    If all of our agencies had so much trouble before 9/11, now that they have double, triple and more, information, we are less safe.

    No warrantless wiretaps, no nets to see what you haul in, do what is needed, look, listen, learn and then coordinate all the information.

    AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

    by SanJoseLady on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 04:50:40 PM PDT

  •  Has anybody sent this info (4.00 / 3)

    to Sen. Russ Feingold? Is he aware of it? I bet he would be interested in knowing it if not.
  •  A request for this, and other, diary posters (4.00 / 3)

    Please place a short conclusion statement at the beginning of your diary.  It helps for those of us who aren't up to speed on the various details of the subject.  The rest of the diary is then easier to read and doesn't require a second reading in order to fully grasp it.

    Thanks!

  •  Flawed? Misleading? (4.00 / 5)

    You are certainly kind.  In light of this information, I would say Cheney's argument is a f*cking LIE.  The whole cover up of the Saudi involvement of 9/11, and in particular of Dumbya's favorite family friend, Prince Bandar, makes me sick.  Not to mention the involvement of the Bush family with the bin Ladens.  Richard Clark, Larry Johnson, and others were going apesh*t trying to warn Dumbya and his ostriches that terrorists were planning something big in America.  Yet they refused to take these people seriously, failed to meet until one month before the attacks, and ignored a little ole PDB that warned al Qaeda was planning to attack in the United States.  Then, when they finally had troops on the ground in Afghanistan, had bin Laden trapped, knew exactly where he was, Tommy Franks failed to execute the order to capture or kill him.  WTF?  Cheney is a lying SOB and so are Rice, Dumbya, and the whole rotten cabal.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

    by rlharry on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 06:26:35 PM PDT

    •  what I never understood (none / 1)

      was why they made such a big deal out of Bob Graham having a breakfast meeting one September morn...
      Bob Graham's description of the General  Ahmad, contrasts with that of the Washington Post:

      "On the morning of Sept. 11, Goss and Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed -- the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan's intelligence service. Ahmed ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban."  (Washington Post, 18 May 2002).
      While the Joint inquiry has collected mountains of intelligence material, through careful omission, the numerous press and intelligence reports in the public domain (mainstream media, alternative media, etc), which confirm that key members of the Bush Administration were involved in acts of political camouflage, have been carefully removed from the Joint inquiry's hearings.

      Then, the one the FBI refers to as the "money-man" was quietly put out to pasture. Retired. (Sacked?) Hmm...
      ps- we've known a lot about this for a long time thanks to MadCow and others. 'Twould be nice if more people would read them and think instead of just dissing them as was done with CHBlue, etc.

      PS- for those who say the media blew the cover by explaining how satellite phones work? C'Mon now- he shoulda figgered it out himself about the time his brother, Hassan, bought the company...

      "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

      by nhwriter on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 03:57:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What? More Errors and Omissions. This was planed (2.50 / 2)

    There is plenty of Skullduggeries around 9/11. I recommend David Ray Griffin's books for a "complete" analysis and time line of the dastardly, evil deeds done. But if you don't have time to read The New Pearl Harbor or
    The 9/11 Commission Report - Omissions and Distortions take the challenge at this French Web Site.
    Below the box:

    As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!

     http://www.asile.org/...

    •  You'd (3.00 / 3)

      have to be braindead to believe in those flight 77 conspiracies.  
      •  Double dog dare you to take the test. (none / 1)

        Excuse me did you see any photos of a plane wreck in the Pentagon. I Just imagine a Boeing and all those heavy metal parts just vaporized?

        Yup I believe Bu$hCo and the MSM.

        •  disintegrated, yes (none / 0)

          Too many people saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

          This argument is a waste of time.

          The plane disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon, and all the disintegrated parts shot around inside.  

          The outside had a nice neat hole in it, very much like in a human skull when it's hit by a bullet.  Tiny neat little entrance wound, big ugly damage inside and beyond.

          Listen, if you want to investigate all the weird stuff about 9/11, there's plenty of it, but the Pentagon isn't the place to look.

          "Letting a Republican govern is like letting a pedophile babysit"

          by Nordic on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:28:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sigh... (2.50 / 2)

      Here is merely one example of how easy it is to debunk David Ray Griffin as a clown unworthy of the whip cream used to pie his face with.
      AMY GOODMAN: Chip Berlet, the charges that David Ray Griffin makes, the questions he says are not answered, the implications of what he is saying, for example, a missile hitting the Pentagon as opposed to the plane, and then what happened to the passengers on board that plane?

      CHIP BERLET: Well, that's an example, and not to mention, there are a number of internet researchers have done internet searches and said they cannot find actually any witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, who weren't government employees. But if you go to searches on local newspapers for when people talked to their magazines, there were hundreds of witnesses who saw a jet commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. You cannot find them on the internet because they're not there. One of the people that Griffin relies on is this -- is a researcher named Holmgren, who goes into great lengths say that he can't find this witness, Dave Winslow. He went on to say that Dave Winslow probably doesn't exist and if he does, he should come forward. Dave Winslow is an A.P. Radio reporter. If you pick up the "Washingtonian magazine" for September, 2002, there's a picture of Dave Winslow and an interview of what he saw. That's the substandard research being relied on here.

      AMY GOODMAN: David ray griffin.

      DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: Well, the difference between my position and Mr. Berlet's have -- are so extensive that we wouldn't be able to begin talking about it today, so for the most part, I can simply refer to the response that I wrote to his critique, which is published on his group's website but let me mention just a couple of things in response to what he has said. The main point, as I made -- stressed in the book and stressed earlier today is that what I have presented is a cumulative argument which relies on a massive amount of evidence that I do take to be prima facie reliable in the most part reliable as main line sources. I stress that what I'm making is not a direct charge, but a prima facie charge that says if these facts are borne out by a further investigation, then we do have strong evidence of complicity. With regard to what he said about a couple issues, I pointed out in the book that if you're presenting a deductive argument, that's when we say that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Then it is important to point out if there are a couple premises of the argument that are at fault, then the whole thing falls. But with the cumulative argument that isn't the case.

      Yeah, Dave, you really made the sale on that one. I've yet to encounter a Griffin lover who can counter Chip Berlet's fat slow pitches right over the middle of the plate. DRG is an utter buffoon.
      •  What? (none / 1)

        Show me the "eye-witnesses".

        Please.

        •  Uh... (none / 1)

          care to adress the substance of the argument. Your boy relies on fantasy evidence and defends his practices with the most anemic language in the history of charlatanism.

          Please show me the current addresses of those listed on Flight 77s passenger and crew list, especially the group of high school students, all of whom were killed, of course. Their parents might be interested in knowing their whereabouts.

        •  Here are the witnesses (3.62 / 8)

          "On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
          - "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001

          "I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."
          - "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001

          "As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
          - "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001

          "Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
          - "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

          "USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"
          - "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001

          "'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,' he said."
          - "Witnesses and Leaders on Terrorist Attacks." CNN, 11 Sep 2001

          "'(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target,' said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA Today near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. 'It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong.'"
          - "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

          "Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
          - "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

          "'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"
          - "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001

          "Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
          - "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

          "Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
          - "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

          "A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
          - "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

          "Steve Eiden, a truck driver, had picked up his cargo that Tuesday morning in Williamsburg, Va., and was en route to New York City and witnessed the aftermath. ... He took the Highway 95 loop in the area of the Pentagon and thought it odd to see a plane in restricted airspace, thinking to himself it was odd that it was flying so low. 'You could almost see the people in the windows,' he said as he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall plume of black smoke. Then he saw the Pentagon on fire, and an announcement came over the radio that the Pentagon had been hit."
          - "Sept. 11, the Day America Changed." The Baxter Bulletin, 2001

          "Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I don�t know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash."
          - "September 11 Remembered." University Week, 4 Oct 2001

          "Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"
          - "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims." MDW News Service, 28 Sep 2001

          "'I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building,' said Carla Thompson, who works in an Arlington, Va., office building about 1,000 yards from the crash. 'I saw an indentation in the building and then it was just blown-up up--red, everything red,' she said. 'Everybody was just starting to go crazy. I was petrified.'"
          - "Terrorists Attack New York, Pentagon." Los Angeles Times, 12 Sep 2001

          "I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
          - Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today

          "Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
          - "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 2002

          "Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'"
          - "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001

          Now crawl back in your hole.

          •  So where was the wreckage? (2.50 / 2)

            Everybody know how relaible the MSM is.

            Why do you accept a "newspaper" as a reliable source? How do you know these are real people?

            Any way Kossian's here a link to Dr. Griffin's
            latest article. I believe it is a little more intellectual depth than the WaPO article you sight.

            http://www.911truth.org/...

            •  entrance wounds of bullets are tiny (none / 1)

              as was the entrance wound on the Pentagon.

              The plane acted like a big bullet.

              Look up some films of bullets hitting things and you'll see.  Wounds in bodies are the same.  Tiny entrance wound into, say, someone's head, then the back of their skull completely blown out.

              That's just basic ballistics.

              Look at the "entrance wounds" on the twin towers.  Neat little air-plane shaped cut-outs, almost like a Bugs Bunny cartoon or something

              "Letting a Republican govern is like letting a pedophile babysit"

              by Nordic on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:23:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Problems with flight 77 (none / 0)

                From an article in Hustler Magazine, Dr Griffin response: http://www.911truth.org/...

                Are there also inconsistencies involving the hijacked aircraft?

                Let's start with Flight 77, which is credited with crashing into the Pentagon. There are many problems with the official story, which is that it took off from Washington, D.C., went west, then got hijacked, then turned around and came hack. Somehow it flew through American airspace, toward the Pentagon for about 40 minutes, without being detected.

                Our multi-trillion-dollar defense system proved to be worthless. Even more striking, whatever hit the Pentagon hit the West Wing. These terrorists are supposedly so brilliant that they defeat this trillion-dollar system, and yet they didn't know that the West Wing was the worst part of the Pentagon to hit because all the top brass and Rumsfeld, whom you would presume they would want to kill, were in the East Wing.

                Secondly, the West Wing was being renovated. It had been reinforced; so fire would not spread from the West Wing to the other parts, causing much less damage. Furthermore, very few regular workers were there because of the renovation. Most of the people killed were civilian workers, not Pentagon employees. We were told that the facade of the West Wing was hit by this Boeing 757, which weighs 100 tons and was going 300 miles per hour. Yet the facade of the West Wing didn't collapse until a half hour later. Photographs taken by a Marine and an AP photographer show there was a relatively small hole in the facade. And we're supposed to believe the 757, with a 120-foot wingspan and 40-foot-high tail, went through there. The wreckage should he out on the yard, but the photographs show no Boeing visible.

                Were aircraft parts ever found in the Pentagon wreckage?

                'There is clearly good evidence that plane parts were photographed in the Pentagon. But that they were parts from a Boeing 757 is highly and vigorously contested by many students of 'this event. What passes for the official story is that somehow this airplane hit the building, went into this tiny hole, which forced the wings back, and so they folded up and slipped inside the building.

                The fire chief in charge of putting out the fire was asked if he saw any plane parts inside. He said no big pieces, no fuselage, no engine, nothing like that. So the people who try to defend this story respond by saying the fire was so hot it vaporized the plane. It not only melted the steel and the aluminum, but it vaporized them; and that's why they disappeared.

                We've since learned that a lot of the bodies in the WTC were so destroyed that they were not able to identify them using any modern techniques. Yet this fire in the Pentagon that was hot enough to vaporize steel and aluminum left the bodies so they could be identified.

                •  you're preaching to the choir here (none / 1)

                  as far as MIHOP goes.

                  I'm way over the top on the MIHOP thing.

                  But the "something other than a plane crashed into the Pentagon thing" is a waste of time, and is dubious.

                  In fact, check out this site which proves (to me, who is a professional in commercial photography, cinematography, and manipulation) that those five frames the Pentagon released "showing" the "thing" hitting the Pentagon are in fact fakes.

                  Which seems to indicate that they are deliberately spreading disinfo about the Pentagon hit so that people will take the bait and run with it, as you have, and thereby discredit the MIHOPers who are a little more critical.

                  Check this out:  I can attest to their claims regarding the shadows of the explosions.  There are no shadows, and there damn well better should be if the pics are real.  

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

                  My point being that you're doing exactly what they want you to do.  

                  "Letting a Republican govern is like letting a pedophile babysit"

                  by Nordic on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 11:30:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Are you mad? (none / 1)

              "a newspaper"? He gives you a list of dozens of eyewitnesses, taken from a wide variety of media sources (including stuff as diverse as the magazine of the Unitarian Universalists) and you come up with some tinfoil about the reliability of the MSM?

              Oh, nevermind. You are mad. Enjoy your lunacy.

              I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

              by UntimelyRippd on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:33:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The 9/11 Attacks As "Opportunities (none / 1)

            From 911.org
            http://www.911truth.org/...

            Dr. Griffin again: "One way to approach this question would be to ask whether these attacks brought benefits to this administration that could reasonably have been anticipated."

            "There is no doubt that the attacks brought benefits. Indeed, several members of the Bush administration publicly said so. The president himself declared that the attacks provide "a great opportunity."2 Donald Rumsfeld stated that 9/11 created "the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world." Condoleeza Rice had said the same thing in mind, telling senior members of the National Security Council to "think about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities' to fundamentally change...the shape of the world."3 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, said: "The events of September 11, 2001, opened vast, new opportunities."

            Looking back 4 1/2 years seems like 9/11 was to good to be "true" for Bu$hCo.

          •  Whats American Lawyer Media? (none / 1)

            You cant prove that these folks are real taxpayers.
    •  Believe what you wil, BUT... (2.50 / 2)

      Even a novice detective could tell that this was an Inside Job.
      (if they were actually allowed to investigate)

      The PNAC statement
      "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor."
      might as well be a signed confession.

      Motive, Opprotunity and Means.

      In a perfect world, stupidity would be painful.

      by BrimStone on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:21:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Without Arabic linguists to translate, (4.00 / 2)

    what good are the wiretaps? Oh, do Christiane Amanpour and Richard Rubin speak in Arabic among themselves?
    Lost in Translation

    What more proof do you need that the "war on terror" is based on promoting conservative ideology, not domestic security, than the fact that the Bush administration has kept firing Army linguists for being gay:

    The number of Arabic linguists discharged from the military for violating its "don't ask, don't tell" policy is higher than previously reported, according to records obtained by a research group... The military previously confirmed that seven translators who specialized in Arabic had been discharged between 1998 and 2003 because they were gay. The military did not break down the discharges by year, but said some, but not all, of the additional 13 discharges of Arabic speakers occurred in 2004...

    Experts have identified the shortage of Arabic linguists as contributing to the government's failure to thwart the Sept. 11 attacks. The independent Sept. 11 commission made similar conclusions.

    As this report earlier this year indicated, the backlog of untranslated intelligence helped lead to 911:

    That lapse underscored a major problem facing the U.S. intelligence community: a lack of translators specializing in one of the most important languages pertinent to counterterrorism, Arabic...In late September, a U.S. Justice Department audit revealed that the FBI has a backlog of hundreds of thousands of untranslated audio recordings from terror and espionage investigations.

    The problem is that there are just not enough linguists who speak Arabic in the US, so the Army linguists fired can't easily be replaced. Which underscores that homophobia is trumping domestic security.

    Posted by Nathan at January 18, 2005 06:38 AM

  •  Dick Cheney will use 911 all he can (4.00 / 2)

    but it'll never change the fact that they didn't get the required warrants because they were spying on people they weren't suppose to be spying on... all just for politics.

    Dick Cheney will flip and flop and squirm and wiggle... and he'll fool a lot of bootlicking brainless Republicans.

    But it won't change the fact that sans the biggest coverup in U.S. History, Bush and Cheney will first be tried and convicted for criminal domestic spying and end up in prison and likely later be electrocuted for their other crimes against humanity and treasonous cowardice in exposing the Brewster Jennings CIA operation.

    I just hope it hurts. They deserve no less for 100,000 dead Iraqis... dunno how many legless American kids...

    U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1999 it was 1:475.

    by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:01:53 PM PDT

  •  Booman (none / 0)

    Let see if I get your notion here. The FBI, NSA & CIA screw up, Let 911 happen, right? Yet the rest of the story the 911 Commission, Bu$hCo & MSM is all Kosher just like Jack Abramoff?
    •  My article (4.00 / 3)

      is about how the Yemen safe house was monitored, including the calls made to it or from it, from the United States.

      Dick Cheney is lying.

      Now, as for 9/11, it is obvious that the story we have been told has been tightly controlled from the beginning.  The truth is embarrassing at the very least.

      But, you are suggesting that there were no eyewitnesses to the Pentagon crash.  I know one eyewitness personally.  And I supplied you published reports to two dozen published accounts of other witnesses.

      Don't let clever websites confuse you.  Some of the most dangerous people in the neo-con world are active in the 9/11 conspiracy cottage industry, and they spread these crazy theories to make anyone who rejects the official line into a kook by association.

      You are eating shit, if you believe the Flight 77 bullcrap.

      •  check this out (none / 0)

        in support of what you just said:

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

        Just came across this the other day and I can attest that yes, the frames do not make visual sense.  There are no shadows where there should be shadows, especially in the last two frames.

        So in this case, yes, the Pentagon is deliberately releasing disinfo.  (gee, they've never done that before, now, have they?)

        "Letting a Republican govern is like letting a pedophile babysit"

        by Nordic on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 12:07:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i don't find that (4.00 / 2)

          site particularly compelling.

          Only a total idiot would think for one moment that Flight 77 was hijacked and flown to an undisclosed location and the passengers and crew disappeared, and that they would use a missile in its place, and that no one would notice a missile strike.

          It's staggeringly stupid and it makes no sense.

          You might as well tell me that the Twin Towers were not struck by airplanes and that they didn't really collapse.

          you want a conspiracy?  What the fuck was Richard Myers doing on the morning of 9/11.  Look up his conflicting accounts. Try to trace his whereabouts.

          But, this Flight 77, WTC7, etc. is just for the loonies.

          •  Flight 77, OK (none / 1)

            But what caused WTC 7 to collapse, and to collapse straight down?  I've never heard a reasonable explanation for that.  I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm just... confused.

            The necessary switch from petroleum to alternate fuels is an opportunity for the United States to create a new national industry.

            by arvo on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 02:07:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Arggh! The neocons win! (none / 1)

              Or CIA, or whoever is running the disinfo.

              Look, folks, a lot of us here COMPLETELY AGREE that 9/11 stinks to high heaven. But the point is that we shouldn't be yammering about the weakest parts of the 9/11 debate (e.g. building demolition, Pentagon missiles) when there's a ton of much more solid stuff to focus and agree on: as Booman points out -- where were the major players (e.g. Myers) that morning, and why did they act so strangely uninterested? Also, where were the US air defenses that morning? Etc. There are dozens of worthy threads like this, but people keep wanting to focus on the unproveable/flakey stuff.

            •  gravity (none / 1)

              how difficult is that to comprehend?

              "They're telling us something we don't understand"
              General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

              by subtropolis on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:39:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  gravity + fire = collapse straight down (none / 1)

                Simple - WTC 7 was on fire, just like the second tower to collapse.  You might as well ask why that tower collapsed straight down when it was hit from the side.  Simple again: Fire weakened the support structure to the point where it could no longer withstand the force of gravity. The building collapsed straight down for the same reason that an egg falls straight down if you release it from a position at rest.

                The structure of most modern skyscrapers (any architects want to weigh in?  Something-truss construction; I don't know exactly what it's called, but that's not my line of work) is used because it's cheap and uses a lot less material than other structures but still supports a lot of weight; the problem is that if there's a fire, the structure weakens very quickly.  The NYFD has lodged complaint after complaint about this, but given the political strength of big construction firms and the rarity of catastrophic fires, building codes have never been changed to reflect it.

                And the Pentagon - look, I've gone to that website too.  And I've also read plenty of eyewitness accounts of people who saw the plane hit the building; not all of them were from the newspapers that are only trustworthy when they say what you want them to say.  The argument that a plane didn't hit the building seems to boil down to two major premises: 1. all of the eyewitnesses are fabricating their accounts/their accounts were fabricated by a massive conspiracy at every level of the government and the media; and 2. if a plane hit the Pentagon, there would be a plane-shaped hole in the Pentagon, and the facade would have collapsed much earlier than it did.  Both are absurd.

                1. Given all we know about the level of incompetence in this administration, do you really think they can fabricate hundreds of eyewitness stories? Or convince every single person who happened to be on the Beltway passing by the Pentagon that they saw a plane instead of a missile?  Use Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely, and this explanation is so complex as to be absurd.  It also relies on an extremely dubious assumption: the eyewitnesses aren't on the Internet, therefore they don't exist.  Plenty of people aren't listed on the Internet - try Googling everybody you know. If that's the only research you do, I guarantee that several of your friends don't exist.

                2. There was, for a while, a vaguely plane-shaped hole in the first tower to collapse (I can never remember north v. south which was 1st or 2nd). But the WTC was made of much weaker material than the Pentagon - steel and glass instead of reinforced concrete. But if you look at pictures, notice that the 'wings' on that hole are much smaller than the wings of the plane relative to the size of the central hole - it's because the wings on a plane are relatively light and flexible. They're made of aluminum due to weight considerations - try crinkling an aluminum can to see how well this metal holds up under stress.  Better yet, the next time you fly, sit over the wing and watch it flex in flight.  Simplest explanation: The wings sheared off/disintegrated. I remember seeing plenty of wreckage outside the Pentagon, but all in small pieces - just like when a plane crashes elsewhere, it pretty much disintegrates, just like Columbia pretty much disintegrated in the atmosphere.  There will probably be some isolated larger chunks, but not many.  Use Occam's Razor again - did the government hijack Flight 77, take everyone aboard to an undisclosed location, while one of them was on their cell phone talking about flying over D.C., then either kill or spirit all of them away and fire a missile into the Pentagon, while convincing hundreds of eyewitnesses to make shit up? Or can we go with the simplest, most likely explanation?

                Ed

                O it is excellent to have a giant's strength: but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant. --Measure for Measure, II.2

                by RogueStage on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 08:30:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  uh, that's not what the site is saying (none / 0)

            If you were to actually look at it or read it, you'd see that it's backing up what YOU were saying.

            "Letting a Republican govern is like letting a pedophile babysit"

            by Nordic on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 12:00:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  A significant point (none / 1)

    is Bandar financing the San Diego hijackers. Who believes that Cheney and Bush were not involved or prior knowledge of the attacks on 9/11?

    I'm Ron Shepston and I'm not done yet. There's much left to accomplish.

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 11:59:28 PM PDT

  •  I make this comment whenever I hear (4.00 / 2)

    the mention of the failure of the different agencies to communicate with each other:

    The common connection and end point for all such agency's information is the White House. And no matter how extra double super secret any information is, it is always available to the White House. You don't blame the hands, ears and eyes for failing to communicate with one another. You blame the brain.

    -6.88/-5.64 * We won! We won!.... Now back on your heads.

    by John West on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 04:38:02 AM PDT

    •  I like it (none / 1)

      Nice analogy.

      Funny, isn't it, how the White House gets to reinterpret law and do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to--make, bend or ignore rules--but is never responsible for anything?

      •  Yep, only the big bucks stop there. (none / 1)

        Now that we know we have an activist administration it's time for us to get an activist congress that will also push the limits of their powers, but in the right direction. I'd love to hear Shrub squeal, "Hey, they can't do that!" about congress taking away some of the powers he has gathered unto himself. The War Powers Act would make a nice starter for repeal.

        -6.88/-5.64 * We won! We won!.... Now back on your heads.

        by John West on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:58:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nice post (none / 1)

    I hate to be nitpicky, but you say towards the end:

    "Setting all conspiracy theories aside, we already know that the NSA monitored Almidhar's phone calls to the Yemen safe house.  Whether they had a warrant to do that is irrelevent."

    Are you sure that it was the NSA and not CIA.  I know it's not a big deal, but it is a difference.  

    I, too, have heard many of these stories before, and they just raise more questions that have never been adequately addressed-particularly, the fact that two 9/11 hijackers lived with an FBI informant in San Diego for a year or more.  

Permalink | 82 comments