Bush Administration Suppressing 9/11 Report Until Post-Election

[PeachMonkey]

Big surprise:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...oct19,1,6540113.column?coll=la-home-utilities

"According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress.

"It surely does not involve issues of national security," said the intelligence official.

"The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIA has ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a report to the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress."

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.

The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Maybe because he and his inner circle are named?
I'm guessing here.....

 

[Phil Elmore]

I hear Bush plans to kill a puppy every day until Election day. I also hear he drinks the blood of infants to stay youthful and likes to push little old ladies into traffic.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Why try and refute a position when you can just make an off-topic post, eh, Phil?

 

[Rich Parsons]

I hear Rich plans to kill a puppy every day until Election day. I also hear he drinks the blood of infants to stay youthful and likes to push little old ladies into traffic.

Phil,

How did you know this about me? I thought no one else heard those voices.




In General, ...


I think the possibility exists, for a delay. I also think the possibility of this comment coming only because it is an election is just as real.

Hence, I do not read headlines, I try to go out and find out what I can.

Just my random thoughts (* Or are they my thoughts, who are those voices in my head anyways? *)

:asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Rich, this is the voice in your head. I want you to write a check for 1 months pay and send it to that nice "Kaith" guy.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Everyone knows Bush traveled back in time and WAS Hitler, then escaped back into the time stream when WWII didn't work out.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Why try and refute a position when you can just make an off-topic post, eh, Phil?

Yup.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Why would Bush and his regime want us to know the truth?
- He ignored warning signs that might have prvented or reduced the 9/11 attacks.
- He lied to the American People about Iraq (2)
- His administration has stood by and done nothing to stop the exodus of American tech jobs overseas.
- He has seen gas prices skyrocket during his administration and done nothing about it. His administration is neck deep in Oil interests, and the Oil companies are recording record profits. Conflict or coincidence?
- His administration has violated international treaties on the enviroment, warfare, and law. They are guilty of war-crimes in the eyes of many, yet will most likely never face trial.
- He had misled the American people about the real impact of his tax cuts. (1)

I can go on and on here. The simple truth is, they do not want the truth to get out. Once this farse of an election is over, then they can let it out, and hope that with a swift "Code Orange" or "Gee, weve almost got that Osama guy" that we will forget just how badly "We The People" have been raped. Burying ones head in the sand or otherwise dismissing it won't change the facts.


(1) The experience with the massive tax cuts for families and individuals in both 2001 and 2003 makes patently clear how Bush used the same unscrupulous tactics over time. Moreover, the level of the deception is staggering, as indicated by Bush's 2003 proposal to eliminate taxes on taxable corporate dividends.

Joel Friedman and Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out: "The group with incomes over $1 million — which consists of about 226,000 tax filers in 2003 — would receive roughly as much in benefits as the 127 million tax filers with income below $140,000. Stated another way, the top 0.2 percent of tax filers would receive nearly as much from the tax cut as the bottom 95 percent of filers combined."

Claiming that the 127 million tax filers with incomes of under $140,000 are the big winners when 226,000 of the richest tax filers benefit nearly as much is surely world-class policy deception. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0801-07.htm

(2) Hoodwinking the public that Saddam posed a perilous immediate danger to the United States is Bush's greatest treachery. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman observed: "If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American history."
...
Before the U.S. invasion, the strong consensus based on intelligence community information held that there were only negligible Iraqi ties with al-Qaida, no nuclear weapons program of any consequence, and limited chemical and biological weapons programs at most.

Lacking hard facts, as evidenced by his now much-discussed deception in his State of the Union address that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa, Bush mixed misinformation, distorted allegations and unsubstantiated rumors to persuade the public of the imminent danger posed by Saddam Hussein. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0801-07.htm

 

[rmcrobertson]

Fact is, Bush travelled back in time and rearranged history so that a) Clarence Thomas got on the Supreme Court (it was supposed to be Barbara Jordan, in the original time stream), b) he got to be Prez (it was supposed to be Colin Powell).

Just chalk it up to retrochronological affirmative action for rich white folks. But then, that's how the man got into Yale and the Texas ANG.

And why kill innocent puppies when you can launch pointless wars? Lots more cathartic...

 

[Phil Elmore]

He stays up late at night having evil thoughts about your mommies, too.

Seriously, at what point do all the conspiracy theories become a bit ridiculous?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

When they stop being verified, validated and otherwise proven true.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Seriously, at what point do all the conspiracy theories become a bit ridiculous?

I'm not sure how to answer this question, since it's not a conspiracy theory at all. Perhaps if it were Fox News and not the LA Times it would meet your journalistic standards?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Careful; you'll hurt your knee.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hm. Why with the, "mommies," one wonders?

Conspiracy theories become ridiculous when they are employed to explain things that have much simpler explanations--you know, "do not multiply hypotheses unnecessarily."

The suppression of the report has a simple explanation: it's called, "politics."

Your interventions on these threads have a simple explanation: you're trying to get people to read your magazine.

Nothing necessarily sinister about either one.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Careful; you'll hurt your knee.

Good point, Phil; I'm the dork who keeps feeding the troll.

Hope your trolling brings you a few more "Martialists".

 

[Phil Elmore]

Yes, I must be a Fox-watching Elephant-worshipping troll because I think the "Bush is Satan incarnate" drumbeat has become a bit silly.

I'm not a big fan of the man, to be honest. I just think the whole affair has descended to the level of self-parody.

 

[heretic888]

Yes, I must be a Fox-watching Elephant-worshipping troll because I think the "Bush is Satan incarnate" drumbeat has become a bit silly.

I'm not a big fan of the man, to be honest. I just think the whole affair has descended to the level of self-parody.

Come now, Phil.

Be that as it may, there's a perfectly valid way of refuting arguments like this --- and that's by demonstrating that their evidence is faulty, or providing counterevidence of your own.

Simply criticizing a report because you don't like what they're saying isn't a particularly appropriate tactic, IMO. Particularly when they're fairly ridiculous criticisms.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yes, I must be a Fox-watching Elephant-worshipping troll because I think the "Bush is Satan incarnate" drumbeat has become a bit silly.

I'm not a big fan of the man, to be honest. I just think the whole affair has descended to the level of self-parody.

Nah Phil...this all isn't self-parody.

This might be though:

 

[PeachMonkey]

I'm not a big fan of the man, to be honest. I just think the whole affair has descended to the level of self-parody.

I just don't see how this qualifies as "conspiracy theory". It's not from some wacko tin-foil-hat wearer. It's a journalist, quoting a source. It will be either shown to be true, or not.

That's not the same as claiming that Little Green Men arranged 9/11.