9/11 = Bush's fault

“WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two months before the suicide hijackings, an FBI agent in Arizona alerted Washington headquarters that several Middle Easterners were training at a U.S. aviation school and recommended contacting other schools nationwide where Arabs might be studying.

"FBIHQ should discuss this matter with other elements of the U.S. intelligence community and task the community for any information that supports Phoenix's suspicions," the agent recommended in the memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The FBI sent the intelligence to its terrorism experts in Washington and New York for analysis and had begun discussing conducting a nationwide canvass of flight schools when the September 11 tragedies occurred, officials told AP.

At least one leader of the 19 hijackers, Hani Hanjour, received flight training in Arizona in 2001 but his name had not surfaced in the FBI intelligence from Arizona, the officials said.

The FBI's concerns about the U.S. flight schools is the latest revelation about information, much of it sketchy, that the government possessed before September 11 concerning the possibility of terrorism in the skies. For example:


The AP reported last month that Filipino authorities alerted the FBI as early as 1995 that several Middle Eastern pilots were training at American flight schools and at least one had proposed hijacking a commercial jet and crashing it into federal buildings.”

“I like criticizing Bush, but blaming him for 9/11 just because a few relevant memos were filed before 9/11 is a step in the direction of the blame throwing Falwell did (for 9/11). Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they are responsible for everything else you don't like. The '95 information in the Phillipines was on Clinton's watch, btw. In just about any line of work, you can't follow up thoroughly on every lead. You are bound to follow up somethings that lead to nowhere and miss some important leads. All you can do is find a way to do as much better than chance as possible. Its a lot easier to see things clearly with hind sight.

Of course TBP isn't interested in reasoned argument. TBP is just a blame thrower. Even if you are highly critical of Bush and of US policy, unfair and illegitimate criticism leaves less room for legitimate criticism. It also lessens the possibility of intelligent, thoughtful discussion.”

“In a way, he reminds me of Newt when he was Minority Whip, <grin>. Once grenade-throwing gets in your blood... doncha know.”

“I've always thought 9/11 was the suicidal terrorists' fault.”

“I think that in a similar thread several months ago we were able to reason that each of the living presidents (and a couple of the dead ones) were solely to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks based on their mid-east policies.”

“Dang, I always wondered if Dubya was Osama in disguise!”

“Gee, that's funny. I thought 9/11 was Osama's fault, seeing as he masterminded the whole plan. Somebody needs to get their head out of their arse.”

“Interesting... Tilt... mebbe TBP is Newt's love child!”

“Now *that's* a skeeeery thought!

Bonier seems to be carrying on the tradition (though understandibly muted of late), and DeLay appears to be the Antichrist...

Business as Usual!”

“Don't you know Artex. Nobody is responsible for anything anymore. Unless that is something really bad then it must be the Republicans fault. I can't believe you didn't know that. It's on TV all the time.”

“BTW. Why must you post this kind of crap on a backpacking website anyway? Seriously?”

“Hey jgeils!

I saw Peter Wolfe at a concert Friday night (at a small no-alcohol club)... he'd come to see the opening act.”

“wait pedzing! he dint provide any "links" ! so his story MUST not be credible.......right? I bet he jus copy/pasted it.

I do have to hand it to ya for a bit of actual logic in your retort this time.

Around 90% of "big media" (including AP)reporters are dem's. Look that one up.”

“stratdewd's last post is a documented fact. Except I saw it written as 90% of journalists are self-proclaimed "liberals," but I'm sure that doesn't effect their reporting right?
Makes you think, huh? Oh, that's right, being liberal doesn't involve thinking so much as following blindly, much like the jack-booted thugs of the late 1930's.(Germany, Russia, Japan...) They were followers too.”

“follow your dog on the lawn some mourning,after he's done,pick an end and call it Democrat,then the other would be Republican.Walk to the other side and look again---no difference ,AH?”

“So uncliff: the point is that any way you look at, under the two party system, this country is going to the dogs.”

“stratdewd's last post is a documented fact. Except I saw it written as 90% of journalists are self-proclaimed "liberals," but I'm sure that doesn't effect their reporting right?
Makes you think, huh? Oh, that's right, being liberal doesn't involve thinking so much as following blindly, much like the jack-booted thugs of the late 1930's.(Germany, Russia, Japan...) They were followers too

Last I heard, Limbaugh fans called themselves "dittoheads"... Are they liberals, or just stupid?”

“lib·er·al
Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.



con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.”

“Gee, Violin. It must be really neat to live in your tidy little world. Some would call it your own private Idaho.”

“i once knew a ho named ida......”

“I don't know Phaedrus, I don't listen to Limbaugh.


Just because they may call themselves liberals, doesn't mean they are going to live up to the dictionary's definition of the word, does it Violin? I'm not a journalist,or a self-proclaimed liberal, I'm not the one who hijacked the word as it has been by the "new left." Nice definitions by the way, not exactly the most objective dictionary you've been using huh?


The American Heritage Dictionary 4th edition, does not mention the following words once in the definition of liberal: bigotry, attitudes, views, orthodox, dogmas, progess, behaviors, or broad-minded...What's up with that? I guess it's not a mistake that the word directly before liberal in this dictionary is "libel."”

“OK Violin, it does say "open-minded" I guess that's close enough to "broad-minded," you got me there, well played, well played...”

“OK Stratdewd and Whiskey Lake. Here we have what might be a "teaching moment." Here is a chance for you to show you don't mindlessly repeat "statistics" that argue for your point of view and swallow one-sided attacks of statistics that threaten your point of view.

"Around 90% of "big media" (including AP)reporters are dem's."

Stratdewd

"stratdewd's last post is a documented fact. Except I saw it written as 90% of journalists are self-proclaimed "liberals,"

Whiskey Lake

OK guys... did you look at the study. Was it a good study? Was it "liberals" or "democrats?" What were the precise statistics? Did they let you know that there could be alternate explanations? For example, maybe reporters and people who intensively study current events are Democrats, because Democrats are right? Did the study disprove those allegations?

Show me that you aren't just mindlessly repeating (forgetting if its "Democrats" or "Liberals" some junk statistics.

Show me that you have already checked and verified that the study meets the standards you held the Harvar Press release to.”

“Where exactly is Havar, there, pedxing? Is it across the river from State Pen? :)”

“LOL Father Goose! Havar is the home of Havar-d and Havar-ti cheese.”

“For example, maybe reporters and people who intensively study current events are Democrats, because Democrats are right?

WHA? Gimme a freekin break. There have been several polls taken Pedzing. They confidentially asked journalist who they voted for. I have seen a couple of different ones, & maybe when i have more time, i'll look one up for ya. Journalist are supposed to be non-biased. Lets think about it....ya think Caty Cowlick, or Jennings or Rather or Brokaw or Briant Gumball voted for Bush? NAWT! They are leftist, every last one of them. Couple that fact with the fact the most teachers(college professors & the NEA)are libbs, oh and all yer movie stars......hell, they got everything covered. They infiltrated all the places of influence. Pretty good plan actually, gotta hand it to em.

Limabugh has the biggest talkshow in America. How can people still think he's not a factor? 20,000,000 people can't be wrong. And people have this incorrect idea that his listeners are "mind numbed robots". Well, that's TOROCACA. Yer just foolin yerself if you think that.

more later”

“So Strat: I take it that you agree with the argument because it is consistent with your prejudices.

How can you criticize a relatively cautious study that uses some pretty detailed statistical analysis, but then simply provide a rant (a la thebackpacker) when asked to back up your own claims?

Maybe if you used caps in your next rant?”

“BTW: I was not arguing that "For example, maybe reporters and people who intensively study current events are Democrats, because Democrats are right?" But if you are going to show that you have done more than mindlessly (and innacurately) reproduce a claim you heard somewhere by someone whose opinions you liked, you are going to have to come up with a better counter-argument than "WHA? Gimme a freekin break"
if you are going to convince anyone that you aren't just responding from your unexamined prejudices.

Telling me that there were several polls is also a far cry from showing that you know what was actually in the polls, beyond some claim made on a talk show.

That research and that press release that your pals slammed actually set the bar pretty high. Can you reach high enough to get within shouting distance.”

“Some of us show an obvious ignorance with uninformed statements,like the speculation that news anchors (drawing six figure salaries )would vote for Gore and other Democrates.I have coffee if you don't-wake up.Follow the money-who watches network news?These people are actors telling their audience a story they want to hear-or,someone wants them to hear.”

“Idaho!? I ain't da ho beeatch! You da ho!”

“"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." ---Pat Buchanan

"I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." ---William Kristol (GOP strategist)


So stratdewd feels that the media (who are more educated than the general public) and universities are full of stinking liberals? Perhaps, as pedxing suggested, those who take the time to examine the world tend to be more liberal. I guess one could conclude that individuals and institutions that traffic most in knowledge and information tend to be liberal.

The ‘liberal media’ is a myth propagated by the right. Today, over 80% of media outlets are owned by large corporations that are by their very nature conservative.

The ‘polls’ that stratdewd and Whiskey Lake have probably heard referenced is probably the 1979 and 1980 study performed by S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman. It was criticized at the time because of the relatively small sample (240 members), however it was largely confirmed by a much larger study performed by the LA Times in 1985. Below are the results of that survey:

Comparison of traits between media personnel and the general public,

1980 (1)



Demographic                  Media   Public

--------------------------------------------

White                         98%      61%

Male                          92       49

From Northeast corridor       61       38

From metropolitan area        68       65

From "professional" family    39        6

College graduates             77       21

Postgraduate study            37        6

Personal income           $135,000   $17,700

Family income             $186,000   $23,700



Political Outlook

--------------------------------------------

Self-described liberal        65%      27%

Self-described moderate       18       41

Self-described conservative   17       32



Religious Factors

--------------------------------------------

Agnostic or atheist/none      45%       9%

Protestant                    14       56

Jewish                        24        2

Catholic                       8       28

Other                          6        2

Attends church weekly          6       42

Attend church seldom/never    89       25



Voting Record (presidential elections)

--------------------------------------------

Voted Democrat in 1964        83%      61%

Voted Democrat in 1968        83       43

Voted Democrat in 1972        77       38

Voted Democrat in 1976        60       50

A more recent study was performed by David Croteau of Virginia Commonwealth University. It revealed that on social issues, 30% of journalist questioned characterized themselves as liberal, 57% as center, 9% as right and 5% ‘other’. On economic issues, 11% characterized themselves as liberal, 64% as center, 19% as right and 5% ‘other’.

The shift right over that roughly 15-year interval may reflect that the increasing corporate control of the media has resulted in the hiring of fewer liberal journalists.

It is a leap to assume that a journalist’s personal bias becomes a media bias. It is unethical for a journalist to report only one side of the story. However, I’m not deluding myself into thinking that any human is capable of completely isolating his or her own bias and becoming completely objective. If a bias were to come through though, it seems likely that the bias of their corporate masters, and not their own would most likely have the edge.

Now in the area where bias is permissible is on our op-ed pages, television talk shows and talk radio. The vast majority of punditry is way right: Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Buckley, Novak, McLaughlin, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Gordon Liddy, Oliver North.”

“Vman, I do hope you'll be staying over an hour to make up the lost time to your boss. 8)”

“Here is a much more recent and very exctensive survey of Washington Journalists. You could spin the results either way. Among other things, the results show the jouranlists to be a bit more "left" on social issues than the general public, but a bit more "right" on economic issues.

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html#views”

“nigal = bacpac?”

“That was the study I refereed to (questions 22 & 23).


One more argument:
If their really were a liberal bias, wouldn't conservatives be falling all over themselves to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which required broadcasters to balance controversial topics with some opposing views that was eliminated by Reagan's FCC.”

“Whether I agree with Violin or disagree, I always respect his willingness to go chase down evidence.

The constant attacks on journalists and academic researchers do piss me off, because it seems the thrust of a lot of the arguments is to get people not to think... not to explore the evidence.

We should never just accept what journalists and academics say, but these are the people whose profession it is to examine evidence, learn things and analyze. In a Democracy, these people have very important roles to fill. Sometimes they are attacked with very good reason, sometimes they seem to be attacked because they are the ones who bring people news that rich and powerful folks don't want us to hear.

Free thought and discussion is legal in this country folks. Don't pass up these opportunities.”

“OK grading all these finals is getting me a little testy. Some students really don't want to think for themselves. I'd rather have a paper than uses good evidence and arguments to come to a bizarre conclusion, than one with conclusions I embrace - and uses weak arguments and no relevant evidence.

I've hear: "How come I only got a 'C' on the paper, everything I wrote you agree with?" "And I saw, because I didn't see evidence of critical thinking: I told the class, I grade on how well you support and examine your opinions and attitudes, not whether I like them."”

“So ped has an excuse for being testy today.

I have none for my grammar and spelling.”

“LOL! I don't have any excuses for my grammar and spelling. And here I am corrected student writing!”

“I think it is already clear that Straw didn't look very far into his statistic. Man I am so tired of dealing of having recycled pseudo-information thrown at me. Speaking of recycled pseudo-information.. back to grading papers. (Senior grades are due Monday, the rest are due next Wed.)”

“Isn't it great that in the same breath stratdewd can say that Rush Limbaugh has more listeners than anyone, and that the media is liberal. As for who journalists voted for... sad truth most of the people who voted didn't vote for Bush, sorry it's a fact. The biggest newsman in the world is Rupert Murdock... he puts liberal crap on the air because PEOPLE love it, and he makes MORE MONEY!”

“You have some good points there Donman.”

“When you discredit a source of information you might learn from based on generalizations and factoids you haven't even begun to examine critically - you become a willing partner in your own ignorance. And when you repeat these unexamined factoids as if they were gospel truth, you can spread the ignorance.

Think! Its still legal.”

“Can I get an AMEN?!?

AMEN, brother!”

“limbaugh IS biased, that's the whole point. he is not a news agency, under the guiess of being unbiased, telling people the news. he IS equal time. peter jennings says he's not biased, he's hiding it. why is that ok with you people? limbaugh tells you he is, there is no doupt where he's coming from. try having a complex thought & see my point here.

oh and btw, bush won, get over it, so sorry. and he'll win again, lmfaoOo0o0oOooo

loosah says what? WHAAAAAAAAAA! ! !!”

“

The Secret Saudi Flight on 9-13 Could be the Key to the Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda Connection

By Catherine Arnie http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=14289

About a month after the September 11th attacks, I read an article in the Tampa Tribune by Kathy Steele entitled "Phantom Flight From Florida." The intriguing report told the tale of a flight out of Florida that allegedly took place on September 13 - a day when ALL civilian air traffic in the United States was grounded.

"This was out of a Tom Clancy movie," according to a retired homicide detective who was hired for the flight. Its mission was to spirit the son of a Saudi prince, the son of a Saudi army commander, and another unidentified Saudi from Florida to Kentucky, because "there was a perceived threat, and the family of the person wanted him home right away."

The "person" in danger was the son of Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, who is no minor figure in the Saudi Royal family. Rather, Prince Sultan is the kingdom's minister of defense, the third-ranking position in the Saudi Government, whose powers exceed those of even America's super-powerful Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez were the two Floridians who were hired to serve as private bodyguards on the flight.

According to the article in the Tampa Tribune, Dan Grossi is a retired Tampa cop who worked in internal affairs and homicide. Perez is a retired FBI man whose experience was in counter-terrorism and bomb-making. Perez now runs a detective agency and the two men provided security for the National Football League at Raymond James Stadium in September of 2001.

The article reported that shortly after the September 11 attack, Lexington police Lt. Mark Barnard received a request from a prominent Saudi Kingdom official for the protection of three young Saudi men in Florida, at least one of whom - Prince Sultan's son - had been studying English at the University of Tampa for three weeks. (Tampa police records listed Sultan Bin Fahad as the individual who specifically requested protection for the three men. That is probably Prince Sultan Bin Fahad, head of the Saudi General Presidency of Youth Welfare. In family-run Saudi Arabia, there is apparently a whole Ministry devoted to keeping Royal youth out of trouble - something the Bush family elders no doubt dream of copying.)

Apparently Barnard then contacted the Tampa police department and two "off-duty" Tampa intelligence detectives were assigned to watch the three Saudis for their protection. At around 11:00 AM on September 13, Dan Grossi received a phone call from the Tampa police detectives who needed help with a problem: escorting the Saudi men they were protecting on a flight to Kentucky.

Grossi and Perez evidently felt they were up to the task, and at 2:30 PM Grossi was contacted by the Tampa Police Department with specific instructions. And by 4:35 PM a plane carrying Grossi, Perez, Prince Sultan's son, the son of an unidentified Saudi military commander, and third unidentified Saudi, was in the air and en route to Kentucky. The private Lear jet flew from Ft. Lauderdale to Tampa, where it parked at Raytheon Airport Services, which owns a private hangar on the outskirts of the Tampa International airport.

(Tampa, of course, is home to General Tommy Franks and the Pentagon's Central Command (CentCom), which now rules Afghanistan and Iraq directly, and indirectly rules the entire oil-rich Middle East and Central Asia through its growing network of Halliburton-supplied military bases. Raytheon, of course, is the massive arms manufacturer that supplied many of the high-tech weapons used in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tampa is also near Venice FL, where Mad Cow Morning News has exposed numerous secrets about the training of 9-11 pilots Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi at shadowy local flight schools. And Tampa is in Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush stole the 2000 election for his brother George, and where Jeb issued Executive Order 2001-261 to prepare the FL National Guard for a terrorist attack on 9-7-01.)

Their destination, according to the two bodyguards, was the Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky, where the three Saudis were to link up with relatives who were in Kentucky to purchase race horses.

Grossi and Perez further stated that upon landing they saw several 747's parked on the tarmac with Arabic writing. The article suggests that at least one of these 747's flew back to Saudi Arabia with the boys, although their Floridian chaperones appear to have left the airport before that occurred. If true, the flight of these 747's would validate at least part of the Michael Moore story about powerful Saudis being allowed to fly out of the U.S. on the second day of the prohibition of all civilian flights.

Perez stated that he was unaware of who their charges were until they landed. Both men told of what a strange feeling it was to fly in an almost empty sky, and Perez recalls asking the pilot, "We're not going to get shot down are we?" - a legitimate fear, given the fact that fighter jets were urgently patrolling the skies looking for any more terrorists.

Regarding the curious fact that the flight had taken place when all other air traffic was still grounded, Dan Grossi said "he was told that clearance for the flight had come from the White House after the Prince's family pulled a favor from former President Bush."

If so, this was no ordinary ex-Presidential favor. In debunking a Michael Moore-inspired Internet rumor about a secret flight of relatives of Osama Bin Laden, Snopes.com describes exactly how restricted the skies were that day:

The Federal Aviation Administration ordered all flights in the United States grounded immediately following the terrorist attacks, and that ban stayed in effect until September 13. (Even then, for that first day commercial carriers were either completing the interrupted flights of September 11 or were repositioning empty aircraft in anticipation of the resumption of full service. New passenger flights did not resume until the 14th.) During that two-day period of full lock-down, only the military and specially FAA-authorized flights that delivered life-saving medical necessities were in the air. The enforcement of the empty skies directive was so stringent that even after the United Network for Organ Sharing sought and gained FAA clearance to use charter aircraft on September 12 to effect time-critical deliveries of organs for transplant, one of its flights carrying a human heart was forced to the ground in Bellingham, Washington, 80 miles short of its Seattle destination, by two Navy F/A-18 fighters. (The organ completed its journey after being transferred to a helicopter.)

After reading the Tampa Tribune article, I distinctly remember blinking and checking the URL to see if I had accidentally clicked on a link to one of those "publications" that spots Elvis, or reports that ninety year old women have just given birth to Bigfoot's baby. But no, this was indeed the Tampa Tribune.

I remember wondering how on earth our government could have authorized a flight out of the country before they even knew who the perpetrators of the attacks were?

And further, why did the families of the young men "perceive a threat" when it wasn't yet clear on the 13th of September exactly WHO had attacked America or where they were from?

According to a transcript on the State Departments website of a statement given by a "Senior White House Official" on September 13 at 5:22 PM it had not yet been announced that Bin Laden was behind the attacks when protection was requested for the three young men.

When this "Senior White House official" was asked if Osama Bin Laden had perpetrated the attacks against the US at 5:22 PM on September 13th, to which he replied: "I think that right now what we need to do is -- as I said, again, this happened 60 hours ago. We don't want to be premature, not because we don't want to name or finger someone, but because we want to make sure that we understand all the connections, not just a connection."

Was Prince Sultan a psychic who somehow mysteriously predicted that 15 of the 19 hijackers would turn out to be Saudi nationals? Or did he perhaps know who was behind the attacks since he was funding charities linked to Al Qaeda?

Now fast forward about a year and a half and imagine my surprise last week when
I read a "Newsweek web exclusive" that reported that Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz - THE VERY SAME defense minister of Saudi Arabia - is being sued on the behalf of the victims of 9-11 for his alleged role in the financing of groups suspected to have links to the terrorist attacks of 9-11!

"Wow," I thought, "wasn't this the SAME Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz who had the kid on the Phantom flight?"

After further checking, I discovered that - yes, my friends - they are one and the same!

According to the Newsweek article, when three attorneys from the "prestigious Houston firm" that represents Sultan bin Abdul Aziz filed a motion in court in the Prince's defense, they also inadvertently provided evidence in the form of "stacks of affidavits and canceled checks" that indicated that the Prince had personally authorized the funneling of millions of dollars on the behalf of Saudi Arabian government to organizations that the US has identified and raided as terrorist front operations sympathetic to Osama Bin Laden.

But it gets worse...

The name of the "prestigious Houston Law firm" that is representing this suspected supporter of terrorism?

Why that would be none other than Baker Botts of Houston - as in JAMES Baker, as in THE James Baker: George Herbert Walker Bush's former Secretary of State and George W. Bush's counsel during the 2000 election recounts (you know, "Mr. the votes have been counted and recounted and counted again and even though we still lost we're taking the crown"?)

It seems that in spite of the fact that Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and his government have been accused of funding charities linked to Al Qaeda, James Baker's firm still feels the need to defend the Prince against those "evil" trial lawyers representing the orphaned families of the 9-11 victims.

Bush devotees would probably claim that this is not a conflict of interest, that all powerful mover and shaker types in the private sector cross paths with "our friends" the Saudis - but what is little known is the fact that James Baker is not actually, wholly, in the private sector, since Mr. Baker is also serving as Counsel for Intelligence Policy to the Justice Department's Office for Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR).

For those who are not familiar with OIPR, I am going to copy and paste right from the horse's mouth:

The Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, under the direction of the Counsel for Intelligence Policy, is responsible for advising the Attorney General on all matters relating to the national security activities of the United States. The Office prepares and files all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, assists Government agencies by providing legal advice on matters of national security law and policy, and represents the Department of Justice on variety of interagency committees such as the National Counterintelligence Policy Board. The Office also comments on and coordinates other agencies' views regarding proposed legislation affecting intelligence matters.

The Office serves as adviser to the Attorney General and various client agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Defense and State Departments, concerning questions of law, regulation, and guidelines as well as the legality of domestic and overseas intelligence operations.

So Baker Botts, a law firm whose senior partner advises the nation on all matters of national security as well as a host of other spooky activities, is defending an individual and a kingdom that have been accused of being complicit in the funding of the attacks of the September 11th against the United States.

But perhaps what is just as shocking to me is the allegation that the son of this SAME Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz was reportedly flown out of the United States when all other planes were grounded following the special orders of Bush's own father!

Moreover, the entire 9-13 mission of the Lear jet is shrouded in mystery. That mission began in Ft. Lauderdale, stopped in Tampa and Lexington, and returned to Tampa to bring Grossi and Perez home. But then the jet flew to New Orleans "to pick up someone who needed a ride to New York." So this plane made AT LEAST 5 flights on 9-13, but the FAA told the Tampa Tribune, "it's not in our logs... it didn't occur." The White House, the State Department, and the National Security Council all refused to answer the Tribune's questions.

Now the Bush administration is refusing to make public an 800-page Congressional report on the attacks of 9-11. In fact, this administration is so hell-bent on keeping the report from the public that they are even "re-classifying" information that was already a part of the public record!

According to a new Newsweek bombshell by Michael Isikoff,

Among the portions of the report the administration refuses to declassify, sources say, are chapters dealing with two politically and diplomatically sensitive issues: the details of daily intelligence briefings given to Bush in the summer of 2001 and evidence pointing to Saudi government ties to Al Qaeda. Bush officials have taken such a hard line, sources say, that they are refusing to permit the release of matters already in the public domain --
including the existence of intelligence documents referred to on the CIA Web site.

As average citizens struggle to carry on their daily business and keep their blood pressure in check in the midst of a new "orange alert," Mr. Bush & Co. are still busy protecting their buddies in Saudi Arabia and lying to the American public.

Why can't we know the truth about who our enemies are, Mr. Bush?

One has to wonder when George W. said, "You're either with us or against us" - just exactly who he meant by "us."
"Us" is beginning to look like a Bush-Saudi-Al Qaeda conspiracy, especially when one includes the well-known business ties between George H. W. Bush, James Baker, and the Bin Laden family through the infamous Carlyle Group.

In a scandal this potentially huge - one implicating the President's close family and family lawyer - shouldn't a Special Prosecutor be appointed? If the President was Bill Clinton, the family member was Hillary Clinton, and the family lawyer was Webster Hubbell, the media - not to mention the Republican Party - would be demanding a Special Prosecutor at the top of their lungs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Even though the post-Watergate Special Prosecutor law was repealed after Ken Starr's legal lynching of President Clinton, pre-Watergate-style Special Prosecutors can still be appointed by the Attorney General.

But the Attorney General's lawyer on such sensitive matters is none other than James Baker. And with the media entirely "in-bed with" the Bush organized crime family, the term "Special Prosecutor" has been scrubbed from the media lexicon - and with it, the last hope for fighting corruption and deadly conspiracy at the very top of our government.

”

“Some of this is very interesting, but there is also some twisting to make it look like more than it is. This does show how cozy some of the Saudis and the Bush boys (and the Ollie North gang during Reagan)have been.

However it is a twist to say that only someone with inside knowledge of the 9-11-01 plot would have been worried about an anti-Arab backlash by 9-13-01. There was an anti-Arab anti-Middle Eastern sentiment going on the same day (9/11/01)

The facts alone are bad enough for Bush without the author trying to use a Limbaugh type spin to make them out to be even worse than they are.”

“That's a lot of copy and paste conspiracy theory. You left out the role of Elvis, Bigfoot, and the UFO's.

It was still good for a chuckle.”

“I don't think you can dismiss the whole thing that easily - it sounds like someone really did bend the rules to get these guys out of the US fast - and then covered it up.

On the other hand the idea that Bush or his folks were somehow in on 9/11 - goes way beyond where logic and evidence can take you.”

“VIOLIN......the National Enquirer of TT


get a friggin life violin, this is sad...


and i thought the republicans went to far to try to get clinton....geesh...”