It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9-11 Panelists eye Bush, Clinton

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
The 9-11 comission has decided to invite Bush and Clinton both to come in for a chat. Cheney and Gore, also. It is a request and not a subpoena. And they would not be under oath.

First of all, fat chance Bush and Cheney would even show up. Clinton might, as he loves to hog the spotlight and he has no problem with lying through his teeth. I'd be willing to say Gore would be willing, as I doubt he has anything to hide, beyond some pesky campaign violations. He has also made some dramatic and refreshing moves in the last year. I'm inclined to believe Gore wouldn't mind getting at the truth of what happened. He knows the official story is bunk.

I love how the Bush administration is trying to make a deal with the comission. We'll come chat, the comission gets extended 'till after the election in November and then you can release your findings....
Right. That sounds an awful lot like a bad remake of Watergate.

Nixon's troubles started long before his huge re-election in'72. Everything came crumbling down into his second term. Anyone out there think history will repeat itself with Bush?

9/11 panelists
eye Bush, Bill



By JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The federal 9/11 commission has formally decided to ask President Bush and former President Bill Clinton to meet with the panel and to extend its investigation by several months.
Vice President Cheney and former Clinton veep Al Gore also would be called, a spokesman told the Daily News yesterday
www.nydailynews.com...




posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I would be willing to bet that they all will show up minus Bush. Bush will quote "Have more pressing matters to attend to."

IMHO I don't think that the commision will turn up anything that we don't already know.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
My vote is to subpoena all of them. Of course much of the material would have to be considered classified for national security and there-in lies the flt in the ointment.

"Mr. Bush, did you order the downing of flight 93? "

"I cannot dislcose military orders that might threaten national security."

"Mr. Clinton, did you have knowledge of working terror sects in the United States prior to leaving office?"

"I cannot disclose the operation of our intelligence agencies as some investigations are likely still ongoing."


"Mr. Gore, over here, Mr. Gore. Will you pay attention? "


"Oh sorry, but I think Cheney is having heart attack."



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I don't have a whole lot of faith in the commission, myself. It reminds me all too much of the Warren Commission. Bush, Cheney and Clinton ain't talkin to no one.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I dont think clinton and gore have to worry. Clinton had a ship in the sea in the middle east with a hot button on it in case bin laden surfaced. That had never been done before. Bush pulled it when he got in office,he also pulled the CIA and other operations as well. He tried to buy the taliban so he could get his pipeline from the caspian. The taliban told him to F off. Our government,probably without bushes knowledge,then coordinated with isreal to frame arabs for 9-11. I think the planes were only supposed to crash into the towers ,but Isreal to assure secrecy,put the bombs in as well knowing that a catastrophy of that magnitude could never be disclosed. Isreal screwed the US. The plans to invade iraq by pearle,wolfowitz and rumsfield were floated to clinton but he said no. Bush is the patsy in all this and he knows it. He has nothing to gain only lose if he goes to talk,if he can.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
My vote is to subpoena all of them. Of course much of the material would have to be considered classified for national security and there-in lies the flt in the ointment.

"Mr. Bush, did you order the downing of flight 93? "

"I cannot dislcose military orders that might threaten national security."

"Mr. Clinton, did you have knowledge of working terror sects in the United States prior to leaving office?"

"I cannot disclose the operation of our intelligence agencies as some investigations are likely still ongoing."


"Mr. Gore, over here, Mr. Gore. Will you pay attention? "


"Oh sorry, but I think Cheney is having heart attack."




I'm somewhat inclined to side with 'Jakal, the commission probally won't uncover any new facts that we're not already fully aware of. That seems to be the purpose of any investigation into governmental matters as of late. That and denying truth and fault, something the last few administrations have been adept at.

(need I remind anyone of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, or the Yellow cake line of the current president?)



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
it could be good PR to bush and cheney to look like they're trying to help, but i doubt anything useful would come from it.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Some findings I predict will happen if Clinton shows up,

Question>"Mr. Clinton did you recieve an offer from the Somali's to turn over Osama Bin Laden to United States custody"?

Answer> Uh, I don't recollect that

Question> "Was Bin Laden's role in the terrorist attacks known to you during your time in office"?

Answer> Not sure about that, I'll have to refer to note's

Question> "Did'nt your knowledge of Osama's activities give you legal justification to take him into custody"?

Answer> I don't know



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I don't have a whole lot of faith in the commission, myself. It reminds me all too much of the Warren Commission. Bush, Cheney and Clinton ain't talkin to no one.


Are you saying that Gore would? His name is conspicuously missing form your list. What are you saying?



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Losonczy

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I don't have a whole lot of faith in the commission, myself. It reminds me all too much of the Warren Commission. Bush, Cheney and Clinton ain't talkin to no one.


Are you saying that Gore would? His name is conspicuously missing form your list. What are you saying?


Well, I'm not sure if I believe Gore was privvy to all of this. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. One thing I do know, is he's been very out of the loop. He's getting more and more like his cousin Gore Vidal by the day. But - hey - if anyone can show Gore's involvement, than I will certainly not hold back criticism. And just so you know, I did NOT vote for Gore in the 2000 election. After eight years of Clinton corruption, there was no way I was doing that.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush, would you please come testify? Afterall, you have nothing to hide, right? right?


Why Is Bush And His National Security Team Acting So Guilty About 9/11?
By Joe Rothstein
Editor, USPoliticstoday.com
Early in 2002, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice said "no one could have predicted that they would try to use a hijacked airplane as a missile to bring down the World Trade Towers.

Early in 2004 she is fighting hard not to have to repeat that claim under oath.

Because it was a lie.

the rest:www.uspoliticstoday.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   
if they're going to seriously
(sorry) call pople, why don't they get myers and rumsfeld in. their 'alibis' on september 11 deserve a looking into..



posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Exactly. Myers and Rumsfeld should definitely be held accountable for the stand-down that day. Myers head should've rolled long ago for complete dereliction of duty. That just goes to show, he's in it up to his ears. Don't even get me started on Rumsfeld.



posted on Jan, 21 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
www.fromthewilderness.com...

There is so much evidence pointing towards the adminstration knowledge of 9/11 before hand.

[Edited on 21-1-2004 by Aliceinwonderland]



posted on Jan, 22 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliceinwonderland
www.fromthewilderness.com...

There is so much evidence pointing towards the adminstration knowledge of 9/11 before hand.

[Edited on 21-1-2004 by Aliceinwonderland]


That's a great, great site. Thanks for providing the link.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join