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 Panel Commission Report In!! Bush not to blame!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   
OK, got your attention now. For starters, I put this in the pit because, well you know. I want a clean fight. None of this, none of this, or especially none of this(name calling, personal attacks, etc)

The Sept. 11 commission's final report concludes the hijackers exploited "deep institutional failings within our government" over a long period but does not blame President Bush or former President Clinton for the mistakes, administration officials familiar with the findings said Wednesday.

It goes on to say that the hijackers were patient and took test run flights to test airport security.

A surveillance video that surfaced Wednesday shows four of the hijackers passing through security gates at Dulles International Airport shortly before boarding the plane they would crash into the Pentagon setting off metal detectors, then being permitted to continue to their gate.

This could prove to be interesting.

White House officials and congressional leaders were briefed Wednesday on the panel's findings, and Bush is to receive a copy of the 575-page report Thursday, just before it is released to the public.

One administration official said the report concludes that Bush and Clinton took the threat of al-Qaida seriously and were "genuinely concerned about the danger posed by al-Qaida." It finds that neither president was to blame for failing to stop the attacks, which were the culmination of years of planning.


I think the people that are blaming the last two Presidents, take this to heart. Seriously, if either of those two knew this would happen, they would have done something to prevent it.

Taken from here

*Ding, Ding round 1!*


Mods, I did search for this, please don't delete this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I don't blame Bush for 9/11. But I do think the criticisms of Richard Clarke, both in his book and in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, are valid. Despite strenuous attempts by the Bush Administration to discredit Clarke, I don't think they laid a glove on him. Clarke's basic point that Bush did not take Al Qaeda and terrorism seriously before 9/11 is rock solid. Also, Clarke's claim that members of the Bush Administration wanted to go after Iraq immediately after 9/11 has been corroborated.

But no, I don't blame Bush for 9/11. Even if he had followed all of Clarke's recommendations, it it very unlikely that 9/11 could have been stopped. And I certainly don't buy into the conspiracy theories that Bush knew 9/11 was coming or that Bush was even in on staging the attack.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Don G, wha is your opinion we went to war with Iraq so quickly. Do you think it was for the oil? Price of gas for me sucks, I hope it wasn't for that, cuz it sure didn't work. Was it to really take over the country of Iraq?.

I don't really know, but I agree that we went off half cocked and don't have a good post-war plan.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
Don G, wha is your opinion we went to war with Iraq so quickly. Do you think it was for the oil? Price of gas for me sucks, I hope it wasn't for that, cuz it sure didn't work. Was it to really take over the country of Iraq?.

I don't really know, but I agree that we went off half cocked and don't have a good post-war plan.


There is really no one simple reason why we went to war with Iraq. Bush certainly had personal reasons, like finishing the job that his father failed to finish. And the fact that Saddam ALLEGEDLY tried to kill his father.

Wolfowitz has pretty much admitted that they settled on the WMD story as the easiest to sell to the American people.

But the overriding factor, in my opinion, was oil. The fact is, we would have no interest in Iraq or Saudi Arabia if there were not huge oil reserves there. People who scoff at oil as the reason for the Iraq War just do not understand the realities of how important oil is in world geopolitics. An excellent book is "Oil and World Power" by Peter Odell, which is out of print, unfortunately.

You know, if Bush had just said "Look, Saddam is a very bad man, and the Iraqi people are really suffering, and control of the Iraqi oil reserves is a vital national interest of the United States", I think there would have been much less opposition to the war, and nobody would be screaming about Bush's lying about WMDs.

As far as the high gasoline prices, Iraqi oil production is way below its potential. And control of the reserves is a long-term strategic consideration, not a short-term benefit of cheaper oil.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
White House officials and congressional leaders were briefed Wednesday on the panel's findings, and Bush is to receive a copy of the 575-page report Thursday, just before it is released to the public.


What a waste of paper. :shk:



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   
don, I think your assessment is right on the mark. 911 gave the US the ammo it needed to finally put down Hussein while at the same time giving us a strong foothold in the middle east. Things in Iraq are going to plan regardless of the nay sayers who keep yelling "lack of a post war plan" crap. Things are going just as Bush and company want them too, bet the farm on it. This plan was concieved long before he took office.

Oh and for what its worth, it wasn't only the GOP involved in this. The dems (my party)have been setting up Saddam's WMD threat for years too. This would have happened regardless of who was in the whitehouse. Once we had to go to Afghanistan, it only made sense to take out the biggest player in terrorism while we were at it. Clinton took a large number of shots at Saddam but had to bide his time. This was a unanimous understanding and a long term goal spanning both parties for more than a decade.



Rant, I suppose that if they had blamed Bush, it would have been the finest document ever written huh? When are you going to realize that these two parties are nothing more than professional wrestlers acting out a script? The more they yell and threaten each other, the bigger the crowd they draw. At the end of the day, they split the pot and go have a beer. Notice how convenient that neither Clinton or Bush were blame when both were at the helm during planning and attacks? Sound familiar? Yep, a double disqualification..and after all that hype too.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Maybe Sept. 11, 2001, is, I don't know, the fault of... the terrorists?

Muslim terrorism has been a problem worldwide since the 1960's. These extremists have taken control of entire countries, and attacked all their neighbors and even those far away, which are as diverse as black Africans in Sudan, to India, Russia, China, and of course, Israel and the U.S.

I don't blame Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., or the U.S. Congress during that time at all. Nobody thought that Muslim terrorists had the balls or the organization to pull off an attack like that. Sept. 11, 2001, showed the U.S. and the world how dangerous these people really are.

No U.S. President or the U.S. Congress working with him took terrorism seriously before Sept. 11, 2001. This includes Bush Jr. up to that day, and every President before him going back to Kennedy.

Better late than never, but at least the U.S. finally woke up to the danger before it got any worse.

What scares me is that it's going to take many hundreds of years -- many generations -- to deal effectively with Muslim extremists. They're devoted to nothing less than destroying the Western world, killing everyone in it, and establishing a world of their design. (Imagine the entire planet being like Afghanistan was under the Taliban!)

Like a bumper sticker I saw the other day on the back of a car said, "Why do we have to fight? Because terrorists don't have embassies or ambassadors." Whoever wrote that was correct; they don't want to discuss, they just want us dead. And they don't care how.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
one thing i always found weird about the 9/11 commision was how come they only (or mainly) focussed on the Clinton and bush jr. terms. there was no mention of bush sr. who put osama in power with money, also aided in the russia afghan war. if i'm wrong please steer me in the right direction , but i think if im right that is a great overshadow



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
Rant, I suppose that if they had blamed Bush, it would have been the finest document ever written huh?


No. I meant it was a waste of paper to rush Bush a 575 page report a day early. Like he can read or something.

[Edited on 25-7-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Doesnt the report indicate that the USA did NOT let out the bin ladens plane until other planes were also flying?

Yet another conspiracy theory bites the dust there.

What does M.Moores movie alledge about this flight? something that does not seem to be the truth?



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Doesnt the report indicate that the USA did NOT let out the bin ladens plane until other planes were also flying?

Yet another conspiracy theory bites the dust there.

What does M.Moores movie alledge about this flight? something that does not seem to be the truth?



Not at all. Just that they were among the first to fly, and not one was detained or questioned in any way shape or form about their knowledge of Bin Laden (which one might reasonably consider SOP in a criminal investigation).

The main conspiracy I keep seeing is the difference in the actual F911 movie and those that keep trying to say what it says without seeing it.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 07:45 AM
link   

No. I meant it was a waste of paper to rush Bush a 575 page report a day early. Like he can read or something.


Now thats a balanced and rational statement.

The funny thng is I've seen more vitriol and venom being spewed by the dems than the reps lately, especially on this site. The fact is the 9/11 report has justified what the Bush adminstration has been saying all along. That the failings leading up to 9/11 were institutional in nature. While it may seem in hndsight perfectly rational that without the abillity to share information the CIA and FBI would be unable to do thier job it appartly wasn't. At least not to the democrat who created the wall between the CIA and FBI.

Did Bush sr support OBL while afghanistan was opposing the soviets? Yes of course we did would you have preferred we had opposed the soviets in open warfare? Or maybe allowed them to conquer as many countries as they wanted? At the time OBL was the lesser of two evils. And doesnt the fact that Al queda is strong today because we didnt deal with them then illustrate why we had to do something about Saddam before he managed to aquire WMDs?

The fact is that I agree with what astrocreep said about the regime change in Iraq being part of U.S. long term strategy. Tjhe truth is that the U.S. is an oil based economy and that can not chnge any time soon so isn't it smarter to keep a handle on the region thn simply send billions of dollars a year there with no way to keep track of how they are spending it?

The bottom line is that we are reaping the rewards of years of inattention to the middle east. The only way to ensure that America is safe is to control the region.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
The bottom line is that we are reaping the rewards of years of inattention to the middle east. The only way to ensure that America is safe is to control the region.



Thats probably the most encompassing statement made to date on the middle east. Regardless of our petty political parties and differences, the big pictured is being drawn by the powers that be on both sides. The arguments are merely to keep us fooled into thinking we actually could elect someone who'd give up the foothold in the middle east. It ain't gonna happen. Regardless of the talk of turning sovereighty back to the Iraqis, the US will maintain a base in Iraq and control her government. We didn't come all this way to go home with empty pockets. The stategy is and always has been a long term one. Control of Iraq means stability for

A. terrorism issues by having troops close to those commiting them and also by drawing them to fight armed troops rather than civilians in the US homeland. Iraq, thus far, has been like a huge bug zapper as far as that goes.

B. It insures a stronghold in the middle of the largest oil producers in the world. Whether we want to admit it or not, soldiers have died for oil. Not cheap oil right now but long term supply when the crap hits the fan. A member (whos name we shall not speak) once stated his opinion was that with a foothold in Iraq, we can prevent the Eurpopean community from driving the US out of the game by switching the price base from the dollar to the Euro. I think that has great bearing on why it was neccesary. Imagine the collapse of the US economy and what it would open the world up too, especially if Saddam was still in power. So, vote for who you like, but of you think any party is going to remove that stronghold, you're disallusioned. Iraq happened because it had to. Makes no difference if it was Algore, Bush, Clinton, Jesse Jackson, or Pat Robertson.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   
in the world are slowly depleted in the next 20 years or so any company with holdings in the Middle East will have a top of the line bottom line. This has nothing to do with democracy.

I say instead of trying to dominate the oil industry the time is NOW to investigate and work heavily in alternate fuels.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I bet that, once hydrogen fuel cells get their technology tweaked in the next 10-15 years, the need for oil will be reduced greatly worldwide. (There are already fully functioning fuel cell cars at auto shows around the world; a buddy of mine got to see a few of them at Epcot Center during a trip to Disney World a few weeks ago.)

While it is true that oil is used in many products in the modern world -- usually as plastics -- the largest percentage of oil usage by the developed world is still, by far, for fuel for cars & trucks.

I think most Middle Eastern countries know that the only reason the developed world even puts with them is for the oil, and that hydrogen fuel cells will eliminate even that need.

I look forward to the day about 30 years from now when the U.S. and NATO can withdraw completely from the Middle East, and tell our Arab "friends" they can just kiss our ( | ) because we don't have to put with them anymore.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Bush and big corporate does not want alternative energy and hydrogen technology to come about. Since then the oil companies would be loosing major money... it's all common sense.

Give Bush or big oil a choice between clean alternative energy and $$$$ gaining big oil and see what he would choose.... you guess. It's not about the environment or cheaper energy.. it's about more money for Bush and big oil.


Most of the problems in the middle east were caused by Western involvement with middle eastern oil which eventually turned political then which eventually turned into terrorism and then an endless war against a not well-defined enemy.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Ah, but here's the curve ball: For decades now, the big oil companies have been diversifying, investing in new energy technologies; in fact, most of them now want to refer to themselves as "energy companies", not "oil companies".

Due to their foresight, these same companies making lots of money off of oil now will be making lots of money off of hydrogen fuel cells as well in 30 years, since they invested large amounts of capital in it, and have a large percentage of ownership in it.

Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. What the economics tells me, though, is that the oil companies knew that the end of cheap oil was coming decades ago, and that hydrogen fuel cell technology couldn't be stopped, only slowed down; so they took a course of action that would lead to their survival.

If there was a global conspiracy to hide hydrogen fuel cell technology, they wouldn't have been on display at Epcot Center, or be taught in college graduate school classes right now.
I do think, though, that the oil companies are trying (and succeeding?) to get the government to delay the inevitable, until the technology is tweaked and the oil companies are ready for the transition.

I look forward to that day, when the U.S., Canada, the E.U., Russia, China, India, and the rest of the developed and developing world the Arab world has been hostile to since World War II ended turns their backs on the Arab countries, and tells them that they can have their little Islamic theocracries all they want, as long as they keep it within their borders and leaves the rest of the world alone...



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 12:13 AM
link   
RedOctober's attempts at blaming the President, even after the 911 reports findings, is a typical desperate view which denies the reality of the situation. Trying to link the 911 report with your oil for war fantasy how?
Blaming most of the instabillity on conflicts with the west and Islam, He says its all about $$ for bush and big oil, what a broad brush and a shallow way to view such a dynamic situation that is the post cold war middle east.

While I'm sure oil has something to do with things....Thunderclouds assesment is more accurate.

Those in power in "big oil" have known that the end of oil was going to eventually come and of course to stay in power, they have been diversifying into other energy sectors....these players arent idiots and would be looking at long range plans to maintain their place as energy providers. Thus they are already planning on hydrogen and other power sources to come into being and are poised to take the lead and dominate those techs too. Indeed, companies such as this may be the only ones around with the knowledge and skill to take on such a big plan.

Oil is a vital national interest to the USA and its allies, every day, all day, at all times....if indeed part of the war is over oil, then it is in the national vital interest, and im all for securing it for Americans first if need be.
Blame me for wanting your cushy, air-conditioned, v-6, tv watching, couch potato world to continue. Because it all takes crude to do.

So when you complainers about oil are willing to make concerted, long term sacrifices in order to wean yourselves away from petrolium base product uses in all forms....then you can say that securing a national intrest isnt as nessisary. Start a new petrolium free lifestyle and promote it...see how far you can get with that idea and get back to me. I doubght you could live without petrolium products, atleast not comfortableand at the same conveniance level that modern life requires.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join