Ashcroft
stopped flying commercial airliners a short time before 9-11. This suggests very simply and undeniably that they knew, they knew about airliners and if I am right, they either planned it or let it happen. That is IMHO what we should be getting after not this muckraking about bad intelligence or making bad policy decisions. All that is just so the Democrats can own 9-11 and continue
the war, sold to us as a war on "terror."
Here is another good question: When do we win? How do we know we've won? This is an endless war for war's sake, because war is how this country and our economy is held together and maintains liquidity. Without 9-11 and the ensuing war, our entire economy may have collpapsed.
Its bad enough that the press lies to us, that our elected officials lie to us, let's not pull any punches here.
Have you noticed in this entire discussion about the fabricated evidence for Iraq, no one has mentioned OIL? C'mon,
how dumb do these people think we are? Even Move On in their "expose" about Iraq lies, never once mentions oil, or the fact that Hussein sealed his fate in 2000 when he switched his 10 billion in assets to
the Euro.
There are a ton of facts, but, no one wishes to discuss them, they are merely intent on this ongoing partisan smear campaign from both sides.
There are people that have taken a deep look at what we know and where we know it from.
But before I leave this topic, I would like to provide an example of "news management" that is revealing for what is omitted - that is, the "smoking gun" of Pakistani ISI involvement in the events of 9/11. On October 9, 2001, the Times of India dropped this little bombshell: "Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that [ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad] lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmud."
What makes this particular piece so devastating is that only days before, much of the mainstream American media was touting the news of a "key link" in the chain of evidence linking bin Laden to the events of September 11 - namely, a $100,000 wire transfer to the hijackers from a shadowy operative linked to bin Laden. Yet once this operative was "outed" as being linked instead to the Pakistani ISI Chief, any propaganda gains initially made through this evidence would now crumble. One possible reason might stem from this Karachi News item, released only two days before September 11:
"[Pakistani] ISI Chief Lt-Gen Mahmood's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, State Department sources say he is on a routine visit in return to [sic] CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad...What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmood's predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by Mahmood in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys..."
In other words, this was a propaganda piece that went disastrously wrong. After October 9, bin Laden's alleged paymaster could now be linked to a U.S. "ally" who spent the days before 9/11 in deep consultation at the Pentagon. The US authorities immediately went into damage control mode by insisting on the quiet retirement of the "outed" ISI chief. Thus removed from the public eye, the ISI Chief's role in all this could be effectively ignored, and an American media black-out could be safely assumed.
Pre 9-11 propaganda.
At who benefits: Cui Bono?
Someone has a lot of explaining to do!
Ever wonder how all this ties into Cheney and the energy commission? Why claim executive privelege to have information about an energy commission kept from public scrutiny? Indeed from the GAO itself? The documents that have come out show they were looking at detailed maps of Iraqi oil fields, at a breakdown of who was to get what contracts, way before the war. The evidence is there and it is " in your face!"