-proletarian-
Chipolata
Level: 25
   
Posts: 25/123
EXP: 82704
For next: 6917
Since: 29.4.03
Since last post: 3537 days
Last activity: 3536 days
|  #1 Posted on 13.5.03 1654.54
Reposted on: 13.5.10 1659.03 | http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/bombings.reax/index.html
"When pressed on what the administration knew before September 11, Graham said he could not be specific because the information is still classified. He said the administration is labeling much information as such because it is "embarrassing" to the White House."
That there about says it all.
Disgusting.
| Promote this thread! |             | kazhayashi81
Potato korv
Level: 53
Posts: 435/677
EXP: 1112961
For next: 44165
Since: 17.6.02
From: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Since last post: 2183 days
Last activity: 2133 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #2 Posted on 13.5.03 1806.16
Reposted on: 13.5.10 1807.27 |
Originally posted by -proletarian-
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/bombings.reax/index.html
"When pressed on what the administration knew before September 11, Graham said he could not be specific because the information is still classified. He said the administration is labeling much information as such because it is "embarrassing" to the White House."
That there about says it all.
Disgusting.
And you're a fool for mistaking partisan politics with truth. The fact you'd actually believe this guy, who has absolutely no proof, now that's disgusting. | Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 1457/4700
EXP: 20297854
For next: 340218
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 750 days
Last activity: 547 days
| #3 Posted on 13.5.03 1844.24
Reposted on: 13.5.10 1851.27 | Not that this is a shock to anybody, but the Democrats still can't get any of their bullshit to stick to the President.
Bob Graham is running for President...rembmer that. | Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 44
Posts: 280/443
EXP: 601251
For next: 10038
Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada
Since last post: 2347 days
Last activity: 2347 days
|  #4 Posted on 13.5.03 1916.47
Reposted on: 13.5.10 1918.03 | Well, the British paper the Observer (affiliated with the leftist Guardian it appears from their website) is reporting that the Administration was warned a month before 9-11 about potential Al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil.
In a top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist hoped to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998 ...
Bush and his aides, who are facing withering criticism for failing to act on a series of warnings, have previously said intelligence experts had not advised them domestic targets were considered at risk. However, they have admitted they were specifically told that hijacks were being planned ...
And, while administration officials have said repeatedly that intelligence analysts never imagined that terrorists would use planes in a suicide attack, a 1999 report for the National Intelligence Council warned that fanatics loyal to bin Laden might try to hijack a jetliner and fly it into the Pentagon ...
The memo received by Bush on 6 August contained unconfirmed information passed on by British intelligence in 1998 revealing that al-Qaeda operatives had discussed hijacking a plane to negotiate the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric imprisoned in America for his part in a plot to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993.
Conspiracy theorists could argue that Bush and co. would have been pleased with Al-Qaeda hijackings a year into his presidency. He could have acted tough while sounding like Ronald Reagan saying "I will not negotiate with terrorists", it would have given Ashcroft a reason to push through the Patriot Act (which was planned before September 11) and maybe even the push to invade Iraq (which was planned before September 11).
Of course, the less-cynical conspiracy theorists would concede that the Admin wouldn't have expected the hijackers to crash the planes. Truly cynical conspiracy theorists, on the other hand ...
It's a good thing I'm not (too much of) a conspiracy theorist 
If there is anything to this story, I'm sure it will all come out in a Pentagon Papers type whistleblowing revelation. Time, as they say, will tell.
| ICEMAN
Landjager
Level: 61
Posts: 644/927
EXP: 1788973
For next: 87634
Since: 23.5.02
From: Nashville,TN
Since last post: 1357 days
Last activity: 1045 days
| #5 Posted on 13.5.03 2052.30
Reposted on: 13.5.10 2059.01 | | (deleted by CRZ on 13.5.03 2056) | The Thrill
Banger
Level: 97
Posts: 356/2759
EXP: 9227957
For next: 89401
Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #6 Posted on 14.5.03 0437.21
Reposted on: 14.5.10 0442.11 | For the 900th time, people...9/11 was not Bush's fault, not the GOP's or Dems' fault, not Boeing's fault, not airport security procedures of the time's fault.
It was Al-Qaeda's fault. The blame lies with Osama bin Laden, his network of @ssholes, and those dead bastard hijackers...may they rot in Hell. | MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 86
Posts: 1328/2076
EXP: 6096284
For next: 45847
Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
| #7 Posted on 14.5.03 0931.15
Reposted on: 14.5.10 0935.04 | | Graham is easy to dismiss, sure. But Feingold (disclosure: I used to volunteer for the guy), who is not running for President, and is also on of the most trusted political figures around, is a different story. Remember, this is the guy who voted to confirm John Ashcroft. Even though he's very socially liberal, it's a lot harder to make the "partisan playa-hatin'" label on him. | Net Hack Slasher
Banger
Level: 98
Posts: 1156/2805
EXP: 9574805
For next: 79582
Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind
Since last post: 3071 days
Last activity: 1490 days
| #8 Posted on 15.5.03 0030.42
Reposted on: 15.5.10 0033.10 |
Originally posted by The Thrill
For the 900th time, people...9/11 was not Bush's fault, not the GOP's or Dems' fault, not Boeing's fault, not airport security procedures of the time's fault.
It was Al-Qaeda's fault. The blame lies with Osama bin Laden, his network of @ssholes, and those dead bastard hijackers...may they rot in Hell.
Oh certainly, I don't think anybody will not say those terrorists are to blame.
But afterwards questioning why there was such a breakdown in security is a legit question... If you went out and bought the high-tech home security and some burglar get into your house undetected. Of course the first focus is on the burglar but then you should be able to question why did my home security break down. | Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 141
Posts: 1243/6494
EXP: 33739487
For next: 380611
Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
| #9 Posted on 15.5.03 0143.04
Reposted on: 15.5.10 0154.33 | | I recently read an article by some guy that went so far as to imply that 9/11 might've been "allowed" by the Bush government in the same way that FDR allegedly allowed Pearl Harbour to happen so the USA could get involved in World War II. The author raises a couple of interesting questions (how did the terrorists get identified so quickly?) but even I, who disagrees with 95% of the stuff that comes out of Bush's mouth, think the overall premise is ridiculous. | eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 65
Posts: 598/1084
EXP: 2300217
For next: 35423
Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan
Since last post: 2469 days
Last activity: 2465 days
|  #10 Posted on 15.5.03 0146.48
Reposted on: 15.5.10 0155.04 | | I'm a bit more prone to believe conspiracy theories, and there's all sorts of weird shit around Sept. 11. Like, why would the hijackers have a flight manual laying in their passneger sear? Were they brushing up on their lessons? And how did we find their passports so fast in all the debris? There's just lots of weird little things like that that don't make any sense. | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | |
