bush tries to cover up 9/11 report.....

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
bush tries to cover up 9/11 report.....
10
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 12:58pm
Why? What is he afraid of the American people finding out? bush is displaying behavior that is UN-AMERICAN.Where's the outrage from the right?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=CB10

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 1:38pm
They're believing their own PR.

This admin. as was the prior Bush admin. is all about secrets.



How absurd trying to classify info. that's already general knowledge.



I read that Sandy Berger tried to warn the new Bush admin. about threats from Al Qaeda but the info. was ignored.

We're surposed to be good patriotic citizens & not question these things.

 


Photobucket&nbs

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 1:38pm
Why would I be outraged? Bush doesn't answer to Congress when it comes to classified information. Not only that, any problems within communications between intelligence agencies goes WAY back to the Clinton era. The WTC was bombed ONCE....how could Clinton have let it ride to have happened AGAIN? What a failure this man was, he put us in such danger. Thank God I can sleep at night with GWB at the helm.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 2:14pm
Great reply! Just like a Good Little Goosestepper. Pathetic! bush goes out of his way to cover-up evidence that will expose people in his administaration including himself and all you can say is "Sig Heil".
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 05-01-2003 - 7:36pm
<>

This administration stamps "classified" on just about everything it does. Can we get to the truth about the awarding of post-war contracts. No they are classified.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 05-02-2003 - 3:29am
"sieg"heil.

Annie
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 05-02-2003 - 8:02am
Did you watch 60 Mins last Sun.? About 'bids' from companies that put out fires at oil wells, specifically for Iraq, prior to the 'war'. Bids weren't accepted from companies other than Halliburton. Reasoning... it was a secret mission. The goverment spokesperson claimed it had nothing to do with Cheney being VP. Ha!

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 05-02-2003 - 10:37am
<>

Exactly, that's what I was referencing. And there is more to come, (think Bechtel was awarded a reconstruction contract) but the media isn't crying about unfair tactics and cover-ups. Why?

Avatar for kathaksung
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-11-2003
Sat, 05-10-2003 - 8:14pm
Because they knew the terror attack in advance. 911 was allowed to happen.

A news in July 2001 may reveal that FBI knew the coming hijaking.

Quote, "WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001

Attorney General Ashcroft, with President Bush (AP) "There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines." FBI spokesman (CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart."

"Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond. "

"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term. "

Be noticed the news was on July, 2001, two months before 911. And Janet Reno, Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, routinely flew commercial. She didn't enjoy the special benefit of security. Can you explain why?

When FBI is accused of failure to warn the nation of 911 attack, this news revealed they did do something to deal with coming threaten already. Though only to their boss.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml


Question and answer

"Maybe the threat was personal, not terror related."

Someone said this might be a personal threaten. But we know a personal threaten to celebrity is used to be assassination, such like President Kennedy's, Martin Luther King's. And a private plane is more vulnerable for a personal threaten, such like Jr. Kennedy, (died in 1999) whose political potential is a nightmare to those who assassinated his father and uncle. Carnaham, former governor of Missori, in campaign for Senator against Mr. Ashcroft,(in 2000) and a Disneyland executive, in campaign for CEO of Disney,(in 1993) were all died in accidents of private plane. Commercial flight's hijacking? In world, we know mostly done by Mid east terrorist. In US domestic flights? So far I know there was none until 911. So it goes back to the topic, how did FBI knew there would be an 'personal threaten' on commercial flights which hadn't happened before?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2003
Sun, 05-11-2003 - 12:02pm
>>Bush doesn't answer to Congress when it comes to classified information<<

Well he damn well should. That's what checks and balances are for. The presidency was never intended to be the highest power in this country. That's why Congress exists.

>>how could Clinton have let it ride to have happened AGAIN? What a failure this man was, he put us in such danger.<<

I'm sorry, who was President on September 11, 2001?

Avatar for kathaksung
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-11-2003
Mon, 06-02-2003 - 7:19pm
2. CBS might be punished for that news

CBS published the news revealing Ashcroft travelling by charted flight in private tour. It was two months before 911 attack. FBI said it was for 'threaten assessment'. CBS might been punished for that news because it accidently revealed FBI knew hijaking would happen.

On December 2001, I had my opinion in message "My view of anthrax attack". Which talked about the first victim Bob Stevens is likely a revenge target of US celebrities more than a target of terrorist. Now it looks like CBS is the same. Though originally CBS was only pointing at corruption, FBI knew what it could really mean as it now does. CBS was a victim of anthrax attack. CBS Anchor Dan Rather's assistant tested positive of skin form of anthrax. Small trace was found in Rather's office.

Re:My view of anthrax attack

On Sept. 18, taking advantage of 911 WTC bombing, perpetrator mailed letters to NBC news. The anthrax inside was brown granular which might mean perpetrator intending at first not to kill but to intimidate.

Perhaps disappointed with little reaction, they did it again(on Oct. 8), this time with a military grade anthrax. The letter to Senator Daschle and Leahy contained fine, white powder which mixed with a material designed to kill. And a man, Bob Stevens, died of anthrax on Oct. 5. His death caused fear of bio-chem attack nation wide. Anthrax crisis reached its peak on about Oct. 20, then faded away. During the period, it created a situation of bio-attack horror, put a pressure on legislation to pass through "patriot Act" to let Justice Department having more police power, push media and public to support government's war policy and also gave an excuse for government to extend war to Iraq. (The "Patriot Act" was proposed on Sept. 24 and passed in legislature on Oct.24. US started war in Afghan on Oct. 7)

Rosenberg, a biologist, has testified on biological weapons before Congress, has recently published a paper contending that a government insider; or someone in contact with an insider, is behind the lethal attacks." (Excerpt from: San Jose Mercury News, page 9A,Dec. 2,2001. Topic:'Inside job probed in anthrax attack') One official (law enforcement agency) called Rosenberg theory " the most likely hypothesis".

I believe the anthrax attack was done by Federal law enforcement agency. They have motives and resources.

They are the one to be benefitted by the attack. They expanded their power by creating public's fear. They intimidated the media and legislation which are the check and balance to their power. They have the authority to access the secret lab under the name of 'security'. (like the case of Wen Ho Lee.)

And

1. The first victim is an editor of tabloid, a dislike of powerful US celebrities. His wife was the manager of apartments which had been rented to some 911 terrorists. He was possibly under FBI's surveillance. (consider thousand of aliens who even had no relationship to terrorist were detained by FBI)

2. Government released information that Atta visited crop duster aircraft. Hinted Al-quada relating to bio warfare. Matching perpetrators' intention to owe it to 911 terrorists.

3. Government released conflict information. Such like at first they said the material mixed in anthrax was bentonite, purposely to target at Iraq. Then admitted the material was silica, not used by Iraq, but US. It may proved that the perpetrators are not expert, only know little about the anthrax they were using and gave a wrong information when they making use of it.

4. At the same time, government released information that Atta made contact to Iraq diplomat. It matched the theory of bentonite, made Iraq a big suspect.

Most of these information can be only released by intelligence.

5. . Though government said first that there were 30 to 40 places had access to the anthrax and much more people could produce it by cheap equipment, it's only an excuse that they are unwill to find real criminal. The anthrax in Senator's letter is military grade. A fruit of years' research and experiment. And even in US there maybe only one secret lab carrying it. And access to it must be very strict.

6. US rejected a UN resolution condemning the anthrax attack. For what reason they did so if it's done by OBL, Al-quada, or domestic perpetrators? Unless it's done by they themselves.

7. My personal experience told it was a practice of Federal law enforcement agency. From their swift response to my comments. And I think they originally only planned one death(Bob Stevens) to raise the public attention and fear. The later four deaths were cover up to the comment " Least casualties to raise public's scare".

This elected government administration tries to hide something from people. They started a war but failed to give evidence, said that was for safety of informant. Then they want a military tribunal, what secret do they want to keep even they win a war? On Dec. 10, newspaper reported that Russian scientists had helped OBL to produce anthrax. Workshop was bombed away in war, but unknown quantity of anthrax might have been in abroad already. There was no detail, obviously let out by military or intelligence. An attemption to owe anthrax attack to terrorist when they failed to find a scapegoat of lone wolf? Perhaps that's why they limited media's report in Afghan war, and want a secret court. When US is the strongest power in the world, why there are so many things to be hided? If we have reason believe those who being sent to court are guilty, a military court only covers up corrupt government and criminal activities of it's official.