Obama and the 9/11 Cover-Up?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Jamie, First, I want to say that IMO, the quality of this thread is levels of magnitude above many of your others. So I commend you on that. Congratulation. You have done research, cited your sources and drawn a reasonably intelligent conclusion.


I don't know, I thought the thread about James Johnson was pretty prophetic too. Don't be surprised if Mr. Hamilton is called on to resign his position from Obama's circle of advisors if his position at Berger's consulting firm becomes known outside of ATS.

Also, it's not really research. There are certain "things" I have direct knowledge of. That said, it's less problematic when I can find a public source for the information.

And thanks for the kind words! I do have a feeling that there is a big BUT coming....






Having said that, I think we have to keep in mind that we do not know exactly what Berger did. I agree that he did something pretty sneaky and he was fined for it, but I don't know if we'll ever know what he did.

Also, remember that Obama may totally believe the official story of 9/11. And if he does, he doesn't know of any wrong-doing by the 9/11 Commission or Lee Hamilton.

Even though many of us here believe (know) that there was a 9/11 cover-up, there are millions of people who think we're whack jobs. And that may very well include Obama.

So, I have to do some more research on this before I decide what to think about it.

But good thread!


Thanks!!! The big BUT wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be!!


No, I agree with you 100%. Obama has climbed an incredible mountain so far just to be in the final two of this political, American Idol-like contest.

I actually was rooting for him enthusiastically against Clinton. Then I started learning about some of the behind the scenes relationships, and I do NOT mean the media-hyped relationships.

What really bothered me about Obama, and turned me off to supporting him was discovering the media image that was created for him was not congruent with the reality. Just like 50% of people who voted for Bush think Saddam was involved in 9/11, I'm guessing that 50% of Obama supporters believe him when he says he's different in the sense he has no support from special interests.

Jim Johnson and the Perseus Group, including Soros, are positioned to benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions if Obama wins. Lee Hamilton has a prestigious position at a "consulting" firm owned by Sandy Berger. This firm represents special interests, including governments, in lobbying the U.S. and other countries to make policies that will benefit their clients.

If some people who were undecided can make a more informed decision, we all will be better off. Deny Ignorance.




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It doesnt matter if you believe 9/11 was a cover-up or not.
The fact is there is already a 9/11 Conspiracy forum in the ATS community.

9/11 conspiracy has nothing to do with 2008 election campaign of McCain v.s. Obama.

Yeah - he linked to sources saying who Obama picked for his advisor (Hamilton), and kudos to providing a source atleast

but the premise of this post is 9/11 conspiracy relations
it dives into the 9/11 conspiracy theory, not the 2008 campaign trail.

This is the wrong forum to post a 9/11 conspiracy related article.


You are completely wrong again.

This thread is entirely about the 2008 election. The presumptive Democtratic nominee just named as one of his foreign policy advisors a man who was the co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission. I am not discussing who was behind 9/11.

What I have pointed out that Sandy Berger is a criminal who destroyed documents relating to 9/11. The purpose of destroying these documents was tobstruct the investigation into 9/11.

Then what I pointed out was that Berger was let off the hook with a slap on the wrist, and soon after hired the co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission to work for his company.

And now the question again goes back to Obama's judgment. Why would he name Lee Hamilton on of 16 foreign policy advisors considering Hamilton is working for a criminal convicted of a crime that involved obstructing the investigation into 9/11?

That's a Decision 2008 topic. Why would a presidential candidate take the advice of a lobbyist who chooses to work with a criminal involved with obstructing the U.S. investigation into 9/11, and who destroyed classified documents which were property of the U.S. National Archives?

And again, why the desire to "change the venue" of this thread? If it's really bothering you just ignore it. Why don't you want other people interested in Election 2008 to see this?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Lee Hamilton didn't investigate A LOT of things, Sandy Berger's so far down the list of importance it's not even funny. Lee Hamilton was only allowed to investigate what he was allowed to investigate, so there wasn't much to investigate.

For the record, are you saying Lee Hamilton's to blame for not investigating Sandy Berger?

Answer carefully or you may trip and fall on your own grenade.

Peace





[edit on 19-6-2008 by Dr Love]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by jamie83
To be clear, I'm not saying Obama was INVOLVED in the cover-up.

Then please explain the title of this thread.



Obama just hired as a personal advisor on foreign policy Lee Hamilton. Lee Hamilton was responsible for investigation 9/11. Lee Hamilton has chosen to work for Sandy Berger, a criminal who destroyed classified documents in an attempt to cover-up evidence relating to his 9/11 testimony.

Hence, Obama and the 9/11 Cover-up?

I am raising the question why Obama chooses to involve himself with a man who works for somebody involved in the 9/11 cover-up.

Pretty simple, eh?




Yes but what you fail to mention is that Lee Hamilton is one of 40 people on the panel of which he is just meeting with. You make it sound like he was selected to be his foreign policy adviser.


No, you inferred that. I would think everybody understands that candidates have more than one advisor.

This does beg the question as to why Obama couldn't have gotten by with 39 advisors instead of 40? What's the need for having a special interest lobbying on a panel of people advising him on U.S. policy?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


I am not completely wrong

the title of your thread is "Obama nd the 9/11 Cover-Up?"

not "obama and a guy associated with the 9/11 commission"

Cover-up is another word for conspiracy
9/11 conspiracy has another forum

The substance of your OP (though you change your tone after alot of scrutiny) is that Obama has hired on people who are responsible for covering up the "true events" of 9/11.

To insinuate that 9/11 cover-up is a part of obama's campaign is to also insinuate Obama was a part of the 9/11 cover-up

since there's already a board for such discussion, it is not *I* who is wrong.
it is you.



For those of you who didn't know this, Lee Hamilton was co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, which covered-up elements of the 9/11 conspiracy the same way the Warren Commission covered-up who killed JFK.


The only thing "factual" in your post is that Lee Hamilton was co-chair of the 9/11 commission. The rest of what you say is purely opinionated, that you try to pass off as facts and not even try to back them up.

You post your opinion that he's a crook
and then post facts that he's connected to obama

just because you think he's a cook doesnt make it so. So your assertion that obama is a crook, because lee hamilton is (in your words) a crook, is purely misleading.

I redirect you to my news snippet above.

Stop trying to worm your way out of your own lies.

You can be anti-obama if you wish - but to make up lies to prove your point isnt what this place is about.

You belong on the skunk works. My original assertions stand.
Care to try again?

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

Lee Hamilton didn't investigate A LOT of things, Sandy Berger's so far down the list of importance it's not even funny. Lee Hamilton was only allowed to investigate what he was allowed to investigate, so there wasn't much to investigate.

For the record, are you saying Lee Hamilton's to blame for not investigating Sandy Berger?


I don't know what went on behind the scenes, or what Lee Hamilton knew, or when he knew it.

I do know that Lee Hamilton is to blame for CHOOSING to work for a criminal who he knew tried to obstruct the 9/11 investigation. It is unconscionable for a person in Hamilton's position as co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, and co-Chair of the Iraq study group, to choose to work for a criminal who attempted to obstruct the investigation into 9/11.

By extension, it is perplexing that Obama would want to have anything to do with Hamilton. I think Hamilton would have almost nothing unique to offer in the way of advice, except for the possibility that he might be advising Obama to create policies which favor his clients at Stonebridge.

I honestly can't begin to fathom the audacity of audacity! How can Obama possibly chose somebody to advise him on foreign policy who is being paid by countries and businesses whose interests may very likely be counter to the interests of the U.S.?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 

Show us proof that Obama specifically asked Lee Hamilton to be on this panel of 40 advisers, then you would be correct. Otherwise you are assuming he did. More likely is the group was put together beforehand, and he had no control over who was on it.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I think this is a good thread.

There's a supposition, and evidence to back it up.

I do agree with the majority sentiment that's there's too much reckless and rumor-driven Obama-hate, but I don't see this thread as indicative of the problem. I think a thread like this is a breath of fresh air - because it's topical and relevant to the core focus of the site.

Threads like this should be applauded, IMO...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

I am not completely wrong

the title of your thread is "Obama nd the 9/11 Cover-Up?"

not "obama and a guy associated with the 9/11 commission"

Cover-up is another word for conspiracy
9/11 conspiracy has another forum

The substance of your OP (though you change your tone after alot of scrutiny) is that Obama has hired on people who are responsible for covering up the "true events" of 9/11.

To insinuate that 9/11 cover-up is a part of obama's campaign is to also insinuate Obama was a part of the 9/11 cover-up

since there's already a board for such discussion, it is not *I* who is wrong.
it is you.


Andy, yes, it is you who are mistaken here. Would you like me to parse your mistakes one at a time, or just generally?

OBAMA is the main topic. Obama's judgment in hiring Lee Hamilton is the specific issue of this thread. The cause for this being an issue is Hamilton is now working for Sandy Berger, who is guilty of destroying evidence relating to the 9/11 investigation conducted by the very same man who works for him, and the same man Obama chose as an advisor, Lee Hamilton.

Why are you so concerned about WHERE this topic is discussed? Why not discuss the issue directly instead of this idiotic tangential issues like where the thread is posted?

Like I said, just ignore it if you don't like it, or if you have nothing constructive to add other than "Oooh.... no fair!!! This topic shouldn't be discussed here!"



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to post by jamie83
 

Show us proof that Obama specifically asked Lee Hamilton to be on this panel of 40 advisers, then you would be correct. Otherwise you are assuming he did. More likely is the group was put together beforehand, and he had no control over who was on it.


That would be even more scary if Obama did not pick and does not know who is advising him.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
I don't know what went on behind the scenes, or what Lee Hamilton knew, or when he knew it.


So, if you "don't know" if Lee Hamilton's hands were tied or not, then your outrage would be a bit premature. Is that fair to say?

Peace



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

The only thing "factual" in your post is that Lee Hamilton was co-chair of the 9/11 commission. The rest of what you say is purely opinionated, that you try to pass off as facts and not even try to back them up.


You are so wrong you're starting to embarrass yourself.

1. Berger admitted to stealing and destroying classified documents relating to his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

2. Berger received no jail time and only paid a $50k fine.

3. Hamilton went to work for Berger at Stonebridge.

4. Stonebridge is a multi-national consulting company specializing in lobbying world governments to implement policies favorable to their clients.

5. Hamilton is a foreign policy advisor to Obama.

Let's start with these five facts. Which do you contest are not factual?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I think this is a good thread.

There's a supposition, and evidence to back it up.

I do agree with the majority sentiment that's there's too much reckless and rumor-driven Obama-hate, but I don't see this thread as indicative of the problem. I think a thread like this is a breath of fresh air - because it's topical and relevant to the core focus of the site.

Threads like this should be applauded, IMO...


Thank you!

That's what I thought. How many people knew that Hamilton worked for Berger's consulting firm before this thread???



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by jamie83
I don't know what went on behind the scenes, or what Lee Hamilton knew, or when he knew it.


So, if you "don't know" if Lee Hamilton's hands were tied or not, then your outrage would be a bit premature. Is that fair to say?

Peace


My "outrage" if you could call it that, is that Lee Hamilton chooses to work for a man who, according to the Congressional Oversight Committee, endangered national security by stealing classified documents from the National Archives.

That's outrageous enough, but what's even more outrageous is that Hamilton was the Chairman of the commission responsible for investigating 9/11.

The final outrage is that Hamilton and Berger now operate a high level lobbying firm, and that Obama thinks it's a good idea to seek Hamilton's advice on foreign policy.

Yes, this entire situation is outrageous.

And it's just beginning. Wait until you see what else Berger and Stonebridge were involved with.... let's just say the plot definitely thickens.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Okay, now that I've done some research of my own, here comes the BUT....

Lee Hamilton was not solely responsible for investigating 9/11. Like Dr. Love said, he was only allowed to investigate what he was given by the CIA and the administration, which wasn't much.

Also, he is one of 13 people on a team of advisers. He is not Obama's lone adviser. Hamilton is apparently very knowledgeable about foreign policy and that's what Obama is using him for.

Having said that, Lee Hamilton IS (in my opinion) a shady character. But I would guess that half the people on that team are shady to some degree. It's Washington DC, after all.

I wonder if Obama even knows the details of this man's past. Or cares, since it's not really relevant.

I think the title is VERY misleading and pure sensationalism. I'm not buying the "9/11 Obama" link...

So, the fact that Obama has a team of foreign policy advisers and one of them is someone whose record is less-than-pristine, neither surprises me nor makes me think differently of Obama. He's going to have to work with people in Washington. Other politicians. Most politicians are pretty much bottom-feeders (in my opinion) so he's going to be working directly with unsavory characters. That doesn't make HIM unsavory.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Just a couple more interesting links on this subject (Lee Hamilton)

Background of Obama's Foreign Policy Group

Dr. Hamilton and Mr. Hyde

And even though he's meeting with these people now, he's not president yet. Let's remember he's got quite a few months before he takes the oath... If we get that far.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
This is simply terrible, but aren't both houses (Democrat and Republican) both corrupted? This means Americans (and Canadians) will never have any hope. The soiled hooves of piggy corruption is all over the floors of the world, and with their dogs looking over the sheep...

We're in trouble, but hopefully the world is beginning to waken, and it will be too late for the elite's version of the NWO.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
That would be even more scary if Obama did not pick and does not know who is advising him.

Yeah, after looking into it more he did set up the group of advisers. I thought it was something maybe setup by the democratic party or something. I spoke before knowing much about it.

Also the group of 40 mentioned in the article was a group of retired generals that he was also meeting that day. I think the number in the group is around 15.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Hes not muslim btw, some joker fake that up



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

So, the fact that Obama has a team of foreign policy advisers and one of them is someone whose record is less-than-pristine, neither surprises me nor makes me think differently of Obama. He's going to have to work with people in Washington. Other politicians. Most politicians are pretty much bottom-feeders (in my opinion) so he's going to be working directly with unsavory characters. That doesn't make HIM unsavory.



No, Obama doesn't get off the hook that easily.

First, he can't keep using the excuse that he doesn't know the people he surrounds himself with. He used that excuse one too many times already. The worst was the Jim Johnson fiasco. How could Obama suddenly discover the problems with Johnson's background two weeks after he picked him to vet the VP, but have no idea before hand?

Second, Obama is campaigning that he's bringing a new type of politics to the table. So to say that he's forced to deal with unsavory characters is a bit problematic. He's not *forced* to deal with them, he chooses to. Just like he chose to deal with Rezko.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join