[thunderous_funker]

Most of you are probably know that Bush & Cheney openly and vehemently opposed an independent inquiry into the 9/11 security failures.

Of course, Bush started a couple of wars so many people have forgotten that the headline in every paper in America 14 months ago was about "what did they know, and when" concerning the 9/11 plot.

You might also remember that there was a string of passing the blame and finger pointing concerning the PDBs, the written defense briefings given the president, the summer of 2001.

Recap:

• Faced with questions of how such a thing could happen, intelligence and white house spokepeople insist that no one had an inkling
• FBI agents say they warned of known terrorists training at flight schools but warnings were ignored by higher ups
• white house and FBI admit they had an inkling, but say there was no specific warning about Al'Queda hijaking plans
• intel leaks show there was specific warnings about hijakings
• white house insists no one thought a hijacker would fly into a building
• intel leaks indicate not only was such a tactic known about, but there were rumors and warnings of exactly such an attack

So then an inquiry is launched (and forgotten about because of the various wars) and the major obstacle is access to the PDBs to know exactly what was or was not in them.

Bush & Cheney refused to give access. This fight was raged for months now and there have been threats of legal action.

Well, today the Republican chair of the inqurity (a friend and appointee of Bush) negotiated a "compromise". Congress will get the PDBs, but the white house gets to edit out anything they don't think Congress needs to see.

from the Tronto Star hosted on commondreams.

from the NY Times hosted on commondreams.

First of all I'm angry that the collosal security **** up that led to this tragedy continues to go unpunished.

Secondly, I'm sickened that this unprecedented scandal has been virtually scrubbed from the collective memory.

Thirdly, I'm strangely amused that the series of official pronouncements and subsequent leaks reminds me of the "16 little words" fiasco. Nobody passes the buck like the Bush Team.

Fourthly, from blocking the inquiry, to hamstringing it, to trying to put Kissinger in charge, to finally getting a patsy, to the PDB stonewalling and now this--WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING????

Dislike of Dubya aside, I can hardly believe they have something to hide. So why the hell are they fighting this so hard? Shouldn't the president be ecstatic at a chance to snuff the conspiracy theorists? Shouldn't he be jumping at a chance to expose incompetence and punish someone for ****ing up so royally?

These guys are so Ideologically committed to the idea that they are above scrutiny and oversight (all former CEO, after all) that they appear much more willing to circle the wagons to protect their own to to actually protect the country.

[petehammer]

Looks like we're all getting the proverbial smackdown.

It's funny, when stuff like this happened in former Soviet Bloc countries, everybody flipped out. But now that is American government that is doing the filtering and censoring nobody seems to care.

[swrate]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Most of you are probably know that Bush & Cheney openly and vehemently opposed an independent inquiry into the 9/11 security failures.

Of course, Bush started a couple of wars so many people have forgotten that the headline in every paper in America 14 months ago was about "what did they know, and when" concerning the 9/11 plot.

You might also remember that there was a string of passing the blame and finger pointing concerning the PDBs, the written defense briefings given the president, the summer of 2001.

Recap:

• Faced with questions of how such a thing could happen, intelligence and white house spokepeople insist that no one had an inkling
• FBI agents say they warned of known terrorists training at flight schools but warnings were ignored by higher ups
• white house and FBI admit they had an inkling, but say there was no specific warning about Al'Queda hijaking plans
• intel leaks show there was specific warnings about hijakings
• white house insists no one thought a hijacker would fly into a building
• intel leaks indicate not only was such a tactic known about, but there were rumors and warnings of exactly such an attack

So then an inquiry is launched (and forgotten about because of the various wars) and the major obstacle is access to the PDBs to know exactly what was or was not in them.

Bush & Cheney refused to give access. This fight was raged for months now and there have been threats of legal action.

Well, today the Republican chair of the inqurity (a friend and appointee of Bush) negotiated a "compromise". Congress will get the PDBs, but the white house gets to edit out anything they don't think Congress needs to see.

from the Tronto Star hosted on commondreams.

from the NY Times hosted on commondreams.

First of all I'm angry that the collosal security **** up that led to this tragedy continues to go unpunished.

Secondly, I'm sickened that this unprecedented scandal has been virtually scrubbed from the collective memory.

Thirdly, I'm strangely amused that the series of official pronouncements and subsequent leaks reminds me of the "16 little words" fiasco. Nobody passes the buck like the Bush Team.

Fourthly, from blocking the inquiry, to hamstringing it, to trying to put Kissinger in charge, to finally getting a patsy, to the PDB stonewalling and now this--WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY DOING????

Dislike of Dubya aside, I can hardly believe they have something to hide. So why the hell are they fighting this so hard? Shouldn't the president be ecstatic at a chance to snuff the conspiracy theorists? Shouldn't he be jumping at a chance to expose incompetence and punish someone for ****ing up so royally?

These guys are so Ideologically committed to the idea that they are above scrutiny and oversight (all former CEO, after all) that they appear much more willing to circle the wagons to protect their own to to actually protect the country.

Reality is stranger then fiction.

with agents double agents

disturbing facts?
hiding mistakes?

Reagan GBush Clinton Ben Laden Hussein others have contacts----
the terrorists get their attack's ideas from the enemy's admitted weeknesses; whether a joke, fear scenario or ....

[mr. natural]

Their secercy was a sign of weakness in their system, while in ours it's a sign of strength.

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Dislike of Dubya aside, I can hardly believe they have something to hide. So why the hell are they fighting this so hard? Shouldn't the president be ecstatic at a chance to snuff the conspiracy theorists? Shouldn't he be jumping at a chance to expose incompetence and punish someone for ****ing up so royally?

The answer is contained in the question.

[zigzag]

An excellent history of events preceding 9/11:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...333835,00.html

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
An excellent history of events preceding 9/11:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...333835,00.html

I can't thank you enough for that link.

I knew bits and peices, but that put it all together in an excellent and clear picture. The John O'Neil story has bugged me from the first second I learned of it.

More importantly, it outlines the fact that none of this is about personal incompetence by anyone in the administration or any foolish notions of conspiracy. It shows clearly that its a simple failure of bereaucratic and political manueverings which all just aligned in time to prevent us from uncovering the plot.

The president has nothing to hide. He should be cooperating fully. How can we honestly hope to continue the WoT if we don't address the specific failures leading up to the attack? I'm so frustrated by this partisan bullshyt I could tear my hair out.

[mr. natural]

Posted by thunderous_funker:

I'm so frustrated by this partisan bullshyt I could tear my hair out.

Awww, man, you mean to tell me you still have any hair left to tear out?!

I lost mine ages ago.

But the powdered wig looks good.

[rezonate]

On a slightly different note, I was just reading how the FBI closed down hundreds of Muslim websites days before 9/11. Makes you wonder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...253580,00.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fbishut.html

http://www.islam-online.net/English/...article2.shtml

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:
An excellent history of events preceding 9/11:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...333835,00.html

That was really interesting. This one stood out for me:

"Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush Administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "was a Clinton proposal." Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an Administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another."

Feckless and naive? Bush calling Clinton's Administration naive? That's a good one.

[Echelon]

Originally posted by rezonate:
On a slightly different note, I was just reading how the FBI closed down hundreds of Muslim websites days before 9/11. Makes you wonder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...253580,00.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fbishut.html

http://www.islam-online.net/English/...article2.shtml

the latter two are worthless sources unless substantiated by real media outlets. The guardian article is just as bad, full of one-sided reporting and calling Tim McVeigh a former war hero.

Get some real sources.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Echelon:
the latter two are worthless sources unless substantiated by real media outlets. The guardian article is just as bad, full of one-sided reporting and calling Tim McVeigh a former war hero.

Get some real sources.

nah. either accept those sources, declaim them if you feel that they are biased, or come up with some of your own.
I'm tired of this cheap tactic of simply saying you refuse to accept the source....this is a discussion board. discuss, don't dis.

[Spliffdaddy]

nah. How about we accept your sources as biased and probably 99 44/100 percent BS?

That would be easier than disproving fiction.

[Echelon]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
nah. either accept those sources, declaim them if you feel that they are biased, or come up with some of your own.
I'm tired of this cheap tactic of simply saying you refuse to accept the source....this is a discussion board. discuss, don't dis.

You're defending the sources because they support your position, not becaue they're factual. You know good and well that those two are as factual, unbiased, and legit as the KKK's site is on racial equality.

It's not a 'cheap tactic' to call 'BULLSH*T'. If it looks like sh*t and smells like sh*t, then it is sh*t. I don't refuse to accept the sources: their credibility is inherently worthless and undermined, which means there's nada to accept.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Echelon:
the latter two are worthless sources unless substantiated by real media outlets. The guardian article is just as bad, full of one-sided reporting and calling Tim McVeigh a former war hero.

Get some real sources.

What evidence do you have that islam-online.net is a 'worthless source'?

[soiled.panties]

Originally posted by eklipse:
What evidence do you have that islam-online.net is a 'worthless source'?

It lacked the words "Nascar Dad".

[rezonate]

Originally posted by Echelon:
the latter two are worthless sources unless substantiated by real media outlets. The guardian article is just as bad, full of one-sided reporting and calling Tim McVeigh a former war hero.

Get some real sources.

Ok, let's accept your stance on the credibility of those sites, which I disagree with you on, and deal with what they say. Are you telling em these events didn't happen? Care to phone up the people involved? Those whose sites were taken down? The FBI? Let's see if it happened, or not. The FBI are quite open, sometimes, when it comes to acknowledging certain cases, and events, they might not explain the reasons, but at least confirm them.

Resorting to disregarding such sites, does not IMO, give any weight to lessening their argument.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Echelon:
You're defending the sources because they support your position, not becaue they're factual. You know good and well that those two are as factual, unbiased, and legit as the KKK's site is on racial equality.

It's not a 'cheap tactic' to call 'BULLSH*T'. If it looks like sh*t and smells like sh*t, then it is sh*t. I don't refuse to accept the sources: their credibility is inherently worthless and undermined, which means there's nada to accept.

reading comprehension not your strong suit? I'm not defending those sources, I didn't even read the links....read my post again. I said you could declaim them if you felt they were biased.
The part I objected to was demanding the person come up with other sources. If you feel those sources aren't up to your standards, come up with some of your own, or call the original ones biased and move on.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
reading comprehension not your strong suit? I'm not defending those sources, I didn't even read the links....read my post again. I said you could declaim them if you felt they were biased.
The part I objected to was demanding the person come up with other sources. If you feel those sources aren't up to your standards, come up with some of your own, or call the original ones biased and move on.

all sources should be taken into consideration,
at a hearing, isnt that the issue?
when some witnesses are worth more, its discrimination. imao

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Echelon:
It's not a 'cheap tactic' to call 'BULLSH*T'. If it looks like sh*t and smells like sh*t, then it is sh*t. I don't refuse to accept the sources: their credibility is inherently worthless and undermined, which means there's nada to accept.

Back to the 'credible source' argument eh?

[einmakom]

Originally posted by rezonate:
On a slightly different note, I was just reading how the FBI closed down hundreds of Muslim websites days before 9/11. Makes you wonder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...253580,00.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fbishut.html

http://www.islam-online.net/English/...article2.shtml

The Guardian pretty much takes itself out of the running as a source that can be taken seriously for their fabricating Paul Wolfowitz quotes earlier this year.

WhatReallyHappened.com removes itself from the running as a serious source for their insistence that Israel was behind 9/11 and that Al-Qaida is composed of Mossad agents, both pretty far from truthful reporting, not to mention no where close to unbiased.

Islam-online.net doesn't attempt to hide its bias, and does make at least a veiled attempt at serious news reporting. However, with regard to their coverage of Post-War Iraq (the name of their link) their reporting of the deaths of US and British forces seems inflated in comparison with the US government's. This source is the best one you've named yet, and that isn't much, given the company you named it in.

As for the quality of reporting on this particular story, The Guardian writes it as if it's their own reporting and research. WhatReallyHappened.com just links to the Guardian and islam-online.net. Islam-online.net references the Guardian article. So it's circular, with only one of the three sites really doing any work as an actual journalistic source. Oh, thanks for not naming the aztlan.net link from WhatReallyHappened.com as one of your serious sources - they fall into the habit of conspiracy-theory blaming the Jews that the Guardian had the good sense and gram of integrity to avoid. Islam-online.net doesn't really get credit since they just quoted the Guardian.

[nonhuman]

Just because a source is biased, doesn't mean that it's information isn't based on the truth. You can still learn something from a biased source. There's a difference between style and substance, and all information has both. Don't be fooled into thinking that the style of presentation reflects in any way on the substance of the information.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Just because a source is biased, doesn't mean that it's information isn't based on the truth. You can still learn something from a biased source. There's a difference between style and substance, and all information has both. Don't be fooled into thinking that the style of presentation reflects in any way on the substance of the information.

Actually, it absolutely does. At least the third source, islam-online.net actually reveals their bias freely. This makes it easier to take into account what information may be true from them, and what is their bias superseding the truth. That's why it is the best of three poor sources.

[rezonate]

Originally posted by einmakom:
[B<->SNIP<_>[/B]

In your biased opinion, of course. What is an unbiased opinion? I would dearly love to se one. Ha-Aretz? The Jerusalem Post? CNN? FOX News, what, please tell me, cause from where I am sitting, none of them will be unbiased, impossible; but what they all do, is take a story, and tell it from their perspective, which, IMO, does not rule out the credibility of the story itself.

So people will take, or leave these depending on what they want to hear, I'll certainly give them a look-in though.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by rezonate:
In your biased opinion, of course. What is an unbiased opinion? I would dearly love to se one. Ha-Aretz? The Jerusalem Post? CNN? FOX News, what, please tell me, cause from where I am sitting, none of them will be unbiased, impossible; but what they all do, is take a story, and tell it from their perspective, which, IMO, does not rule out the credibility of the story itself.

So people will take, or leave these depending on what they want to hear, I'll certainly give them a look-in though.

Actually, HaAretz is the best of the major Israeli news sources, and you take it as credible for matters Israeli, because they're there, a direct primary source. Heck, even the conspiracy-theorist-tin-foil-hat site whatreallyhappened.com quotes them. As they say, a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Far better than quoting a source several countries away, why not quote the primary source?

CNN and Fox are opposite sides of the same coin. Fox has mildly better middle east reporting, and will show live footage while CNN will show a talking head prattling on. Other than that, they're really the same in terms of quality and bias.

The problem with Islam-online.net isn't that they're biased, it's how closely they safeguard so that their reporting doesn't overtly intermingle with their bias. They could stand to save it for the views and analyses links which they have set aside. Or, you could read it for the articles, but don't be surprised if people don't take it, and by extension you, seriously- the same happens for people who name freerepublic as a source.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by einmakom:
The problem with Islam-online.net isn't that they're biased, it's how closely they safeguard so that their reporting doesn't overtly intermingle with their bias. They could stand to save it for the views and analyses links which they have set aside. Or, you could read it for the articles, but don't be surprised if people don't take it, and by extension you, seriously- the same happens for people who name freerepublic as a source.

I think the problem is that if someone posts a link from a source considered "biased" by someone else, that is more a reflection of the relative extremism of the viewer.

Lerk's Law states:

The reason people tend to think the news media is too liberal or too
conservative is because of Lerk's patented Theory of Relative Extremism, to
wit:

The further one travels to any extreme, the more anything else in the
spectrum APPEARS to shift to the other extreme, even if it doesn't move at
all. Even things which strike a perfect balance, when viewed from an
extreme, appear to unbalanced in the opposite direction.

In fact, if one is an extremist, the only way the media will appear fair is
if they completely agree with the extremist view, which of course, means
they've become completely UNfair to the rest of the spectrum, but the
extremist in question will interpret it as TRUTH when in fact it is only
presented one extreme facet of the truth.

The problem is, whether a source is considered "biased" depends entirely on the reader and their own internal bias. Therefore, demanding people NOT use news sources that to THEM appeared balanced, but to YOU appear biased would be unwieldy to implement. Who would determine which sources were of sufficient bias to disinclude? For example: Spacefreak, spliffdaddy, nvaughn3 and others might perceive Foxnews as a fair and balanced source. Lil baby kitten, Maxelson, zigzag and others might consider it too extremely right wing.
From their relative perspectives, the source is either legitimate or it is not, but that perception is not congruent from macnn member to macnn member.

Therefore, I suggest an end to the tonguelashings on what is considered a biased or unbiased source, since that is in the eye of the beholder anyways, and either argue the points brought up in the link on their own merits, regardless of bias, or move on to another thread.

For example, Rush Limbaugh might write an article on oh....separation of church and state. Now, his view might or might not be extreme, but that does NOT invalidate the topic of separation of church and state. The topic for discussion still remains legitimate, even if the links provide an extreme view.

There's nothing wrong with saying in that case "I think Rush's views are extreme, but I think that the separation of church and state should instead be......" and the discussion continues.
However, what happens most often is that people grind the thread to a halt by trying the invalidate the TOPIC when a link or a pundit quoted is extreme, one way or the other on the issue.
The topic remains valid. If you find the views already expressed as extreme, provide your own to balance.

[Echelon]

the topic does remain valid, but the foundation on which an argument is based may certainly be questioned and, if found lacking, will be called out as bullsh*t. No one in their right mind claims kavkaz.org as a promoter of warm and fuzzy feeling for all mankind or of Muslim-Jewish unity and peace-making. It's the exact opposite. The same goes for those sites we're all ripping on (or cheerleading for): you can't rely on them if you want to make a serious argument and not have it torn to shreds.

[thunderous_funker]

If you want to continue this ad hominem argument, do it elsewhere. I'm sick and tired of good topics being derailed by this tactic.

And yes, dimissing information because you believe the source is biased is the definition of an ad hominem argument.

Anyone want to actually address the issue at hand? Bush playing politicas with the 9/11 probe.



Captures it quite well. I particularly like the "box that up and send it to the victims' families" part....

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Captures it quite well . . .

Reminds me of an old joke: "My wife and I went shopping for a car. I wanted a Miata and she wanted a wagon. So we compromised and got the wagon."

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The president has nothing to hide. He should be cooperating fully. How can we honestly hope to continue the WoT if we don't address the specific failures leading up to the attack? I'm so frustrated by this partisan bullshyt I could tear my hair out.

Those failures go deep back into American History. Sure you can castigate Bush for whatever he knew about 9-11.

Where does that get you?

In my opinion, nowhere. Why?

Because Bush had nothing to do with the first terrorist incident I was aware of against americans- the Iran hostage crisis. It has EVERYTHING to do with how America stuck its head in the sand when it came to dealing with crises like this.

9-11 was building up to its climactic sickening end. America had tried to appease the enemy rather than vanquishing it. Therein lied the problem.

Blaming bush is pathetically short-sighted.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Those failures go deep back into American History. Sure you can castigate Bush for whatever he knew about 9-11.

Where does that get you?

In my opinion, nowhere. Why?

Because Bush had nothing to do with the first terrorist incident I was aware of against americans- the Iran hostage crisis. It has EVERYTHING to do with how America stuck its head in the sand when it came to dealing with crises like this.

9-11 was building up to its climactic sickening end. America had tried to appease the enemy rather than vanquishing it. Therein lied the problem.

Blaming bush is pathetically short-sighted.

In your zeal to rush to the defense of your party, you failed to notice that no one is blaming Bush for 9/11. In fact, the facts (as clearly laid out in the Time article) indicate he has absolutely nothing to hide.

Which is why I said he has nothing to hide and should be cooperating fully with the inquiry.

Read the Time article zigzag linked to. You'll see quite clearly that all the talk of "appeasement" or "heads in sand" is nothing more than political spin on the very real actions of administrations past and present.

So again. Bush has nothing to hide, as near as I can tell. This **** up seems to be a perfectly reasonable matter of bereaucratic and political short-sightedness and simply bad timing (the transition mostly to blame for things falling through the cracks).

If the president is serious about winning the WoT and serious about protecting American, he'd better stop covering for the failures of the past (none of which appear to be his fault) and start fixing the very real and systemic problems in national security.

National security means protecting the country, not keeping them in the dark about how incompetent our security apparatus really is.

[rezonate]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Actually, HaAretz is the best of the major Israeli news sources, and you take it as credible for matters Israeli, because they're there, a direct primary source. Heck, even the conspiracy-theorist-tin-foil-hat site whatreallyhappened.com quotes them. As they say, a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Far better than quoting a source several countries away, why not quote the primary source?

CNN and Fox are opposite sides of the same coin. Fox has mildly better middle east reporting, and will show live footage while CNN will show a talking head prattling on. Other than that, they're really the same in terms of quality and bias.

The problem with Islam-online.net isn't that they're biased, it's how closely they safeguard so that their reporting doesn't overtly intermingle with their bias. They could stand to save it for the views and analyses links which they have set aside. Or, you could read it for the articles, but don't be surprised if people don't take it, and by extension you, seriously- the same happens for people who name freerepublic as a source.

Reporting of the news irrespective of how much coverage it is given, such as what FOX does, is not a guarantee that is fair, or fairly unbiased. Just watchign FOX makes me want to strangle the reporters, their biased anti-Arab approach is plainly obvious.

Ha-Aretz? Wolf in sheeps' clothing.

[BlackGriffen]

I think that you're touching on the possible reasons, t_f, and just aren't quite saying it. If it becomes confirmed that 9/11 was cause by run of the mill diplomatic bumbling and stumbling, then there is no more buck to pass. Bush wants to cultivate an image in the people's minds of him as our Savior from the mistakes made by Clinton (and presidents before). If Al Qaeda can't be blamed on Clinton, Bush at least wants a vacuum of information where the blame can be assigned to Slick Willie tacitly.

It would also hurt an image as Savior if His People were revealed to be fallible.

It would also undercut efforts to get a Patriot Act II, and open the door for the repeal of Patriot Act I. If it is obvious that the law enforcement apparatus already had all of the powers it needed, then making a case for more power becomes dramatically harder.

Last, and certainly not least, Bush may be afraid that the Democrats will be able to twist it around in to blame for him, somehow. After all, if his spinmeisters could twist responsibility for 9/11 on to Saddam Hussein, surely the Democrats could twist a bureaucratic blunder in to an accusation of incompetent management (thus, Bush).

He may be overestimating the Democrats, though.

BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I think that you're touching on the possible reasons, t_f, and just aren't quite saying it. If it becomes confirmed that 9/11 was cause by run of the mill diplomatic bumbling and stumbling, then there is no more buck to pass. Bush wants to cultivate an image in the people's minds of him as our Savior from the mistakes made by Clinton (and presidents before). If Al Qaeda can't be blamed on Clinton, Bush at least wants a vacuum of information where the blame can be assigned to Slick Willie tacitly.

It would also hurt an image as Savior if His People were revealed to be fallible.

It would also undercut efforts to get a Patriot Act II, and open the door for the repeal of Patriot Act I. If it is obvious that the law enforcement apparatus already had all of the powers it needed, then making a case for more power becomes dramatically harder.

Last, and certainly not least, Bush may be afraid that the Democrats will be able to twist it around in to blame for him, somehow. After all, if his spinmeisters could twist responsibility for 9/11 on to Saddam Hussein, surely the Democrats could twist a bureaucratic blunder in to an accusation of incompetent management (thus, Bush).

He may be overestimating the Democrats, though.

BlackGriffen

Total agreement on all points, especially that they're overestimating the Democrats.