Sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies reported in September 2006 that the U.S.
It’s clear that war is not the answer. As the 110th Congress returns to work, its focus should be on funding the tools to peacefully resolve and prevent conflicts, and on building international understanding through people to people exchanges, public information and education, the United Nations, diplomacy, and economic development.
We should honor the victims of September 11 by doing everything we can to prevent new attacks and preserve a plural, democratic, and open society in the United States, instead of removing Citizens God Given rights stated in the US Constitution. To do this we must reorient our priorities and our government spending from war to international cooperation and peace.
This letter has not been edited.
I don't believe the world has turned against us but I do believe they are strongly opposed to our occupation in Iraq. We can restore our standing in the International community by changing our policy in Iraq from one of confrontation to one of support.Posted by Stan Broyles on September 14, 2007 02:54 PM
This letter has too many statements of alternate reality to counter all of them, but I'll take a crack at them and invite Ms. McQuiggen to join us here on this planet.
The intelligence reports that state that more terrorists are being generated than countered in Iraq also state that leaving Iraq would be an epic mistake.
We don't have to PROVE Osama Bin Laden orchestrated 9/11 because he BRAGGED about it and his chief killer ADMITTED it.
The "international goodwill" that has been squandered is the same "goodwill" from the same nations that have utterly failed to provide for their own defense.
While I agree that building peace is better than preparing for war, it was the inneptitude, corruption, and timidity of the UN that established the situation circa 2000. When given the chance to work in Iraq, the UN bravely lifted its skirts and fled.
Lastly, Ms. McQuiggen sites lost Constitutional rights, but I would ask her to state just one that has been damaged.
While I have no doubt that the letter writer's heart is full of compassion, I would invite her to reserve room for common sense.Posted by neal5x5 on September 14, 2007 03:46 PM
Mr. Broyles said:
"We can restore our standing in the International community by changing our policy in Iraq from one of confrontation to one of support."
Why the concern with our "standing in the international community"?
Most of the democratic international community exists because of our efforts and sacrifice. They will complain about any bold move we make. During the cold war in the 80's, they complained we were starting a war against the Soviet Union. We must do what we believe is right, not what others believe is right.Posted by John II on September 14, 2007 03:58 PM
Actually, as I remember it, we had quite a bit of international support regarding our dealings with the USSR. And I certainly don't believe isolationism is helpful.Posted by Stan Broyles on September 14, 2007 04:33 PM
Oh no the world is mad at us whatever will we do??????Posted by Heather on September 14, 2007 06:15 PM
Just about all thinking people want other nations to help us with Iraq. And then there are John II and Heather. Is it OK with them if it's only Americans who are getting killed?Posted by Truth on September 14, 2007 09:19 PM
They also conveniently leave out the fact that politically balanced groups, such as the Iraq Study Group, have all said that dialogue with other nations is key to resolving the issues in Iraq, but we've seen nothing more than an ignorant, "go it alone" or "you're with us or against us" policy from a President who is the most detached from reality and devoid of common sense of them all. I hate to imagine those like John II or Heather being the ones who decide what is right. I assume that his comment "Most of the democratic international community exists because of our efforts and sacrifice" is referring to one or both of the World Wars. He must be ignoring the fact that millions of their soldiers and civilians died in those conflicts. For him to insinuate that it was our sacrifice that solely brought them democracy is not only ridiculous but it's dishonest. It's attitudes like his that cause our country so much headache with international relations. John would be in great company with our "egomaniac with an inferiority complex" of a President.Posted by Keith and Hank sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-g on September 14, 2007 09:33 PM
Neil5x5: Sorry, but Bin Laden did NOT admit nor BRAG about 9/11. Even the FBI doesn't want to admit to any taped confession. The reasons are frightening. If you are willing to at least listen and not hold your hands on your ears and scream 'LA LA LA LA LA LA LA' while I am trying to show you an alternative point of view, then, fine. I will proceed. Otherwise, sad you for believing what even the FBI doesn't believe to be true anymore.Posted by Sheila on September 14, 2007 10:37 PM
I pray that Neal will one day recognize that common sense is a collection of a person's bias and prejudice and some place so much value on theirs they are willing to kill on account of them, i.e. on account of it: Their common sense.Posted by RG r22037yahoo (Free Copy of FreeThought Today at ffrf.org) on September 15, 2007 10:49 AM
Your comments, Neal5x5 demonstrate that you have not spent much time, if any, examining what really happened on 9/11/01 and that you simply believe the U.S. governments offical conspiracy theory about 19 Arabs with boxcutters and airplanes.
You say that Osama Bin Laden bragged about his orchestration of 9/11, but does your comment simply reflect what you hear on the government controlled corporate media and TV? If you go to the FBI's website you will find that he is not wnted for the events of 9/11 because they admit that they do not have a shread of evidence linking him to the crime.
If you take the time to read the official 9/11 Commission Report, which is available for free at most libraries, you will find that it is full of holes and ommissions and that it was not an independent report because it was controlled and directed by President Bush's close associate and friend, Mr. Philip Zelikow, who also authored a book with Ms. (watch out for a mushroom cloud) Condoleeza Rice.
In its report, The 9/11 Commission must have beed afraid to and so did not even discuss the 6.5 second free fall collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, a 47 story steel framed high rise, which occurred on 9/11/01 at 5:20 PM and the governments own N.I.S.T. department has yet to provide as promised, a plausible explaination of this collapse and now it is six years later.
The commission has also failed to explain how 110 story steel framed high rise WTC buildings 1 and 2 could defy the laws of physics and collapse in about 10 seconds each from oxygen starved fires.
The official conspiracy theory cannot possibly be true and over 50 percent of the American public does not believe it.
You ask Stephanie Mc Quiggin to state just one Constitutional Rights that that has been damaged. From this I make the assumption that you have never actually read the U.S Constitution and so I will give you several examples of how 9/11 has led to destruction of our Constitutional rights.
1. According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress and not the President, can authorize and send our troops to war. Since President Bush declared war without permission from the U.S Congress, this makes the current Iraq war an illegal war and our government is borrowing billions from the phoney Federal Reserve, which is not Federal and has no Reserves, to pay for it.
2. According to article IV of the U.S Constitution, our citizens have " the right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures; search warrants." But after the 'False Flag 9/11 attack', the U.S. government passed The Patriot Act . This screwed up Act, which many of our elected officials passed, without even reading it, now allows the police to enter your home or business and go through your possessions and computer, without your consent, when you are not present, when you do not know about it and for any reason they choose. This is a clear violation of your constitutional rights.
Mr Neal5x5, it certainly does appear that Stephanie has the common sense and that you have a lot to learn before you decide to spout off such nonsense.Posted by WW on September 15, 2007 02:04 PM
Since it is possible that Neal5x5 MIGHT listen, I post the following. (it is a bit long, but OH SO WORTH the read!)
from the mukraker report:
July 26, 2007 -- To those who are not familiar with our work, Ed Haas and I have done extensive research regarding the authenticity of the “bin Laden Confession Tape” that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Bush administration officials pointed to the video as the smoking gun and proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
After more than a year of research, we were able to show with a very high degree of certainty that the tape was the result of a sting operation run by U.S. intelligence, with the help of Saudi intelligence, and that bin Laden could have been captured on the date he was taped, September 26, 2001, ten days prior to the war in Afghanistan.
We concluded that bin Laden was allowed to walk because if he were captured instead of just being taped, there would have been diminished justification and therefore less support for military actions in Afghanistan. Arguably, if bin Laden had been captured or killed when the CIA had the chance on September 26, 2001 – the Bush Administration would have met much greater resistance against its invasion of Afghanistan.
This fact has many legal ramifications in many jurisdictions, from the local level, Manhattan, to the federal level, and internationally. Respectively, the Bush administration engaged in crimes ranging from aiding and abetting a murderer, bin Laden was wanted at the time by the FBI for the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, to dereliction of duty, high treason, and finally, a high crime against humanity.
But is bin Laden truly responsible for 9/11?
We, instead of assigning guilt, preferred to call for an official, thorough and transparent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the videotape and the prosecution of anyone that has committed a crime – to include the President and Vice President.
Our findings have been shared with law enforcement and investigative bodies in all the mentioned jurisdictions along with the national and international media - but no action has been taken.
The other factor that prevented us from assigning guilt or voicing our personal opinion was the fact that the 9/11 truth movement, the most vocal movement that shares our goal of a new and transparent investigation, consists of many people who believe that bin Laden is a direct asset of the CIA and working under the CIA’s direction. Since our findings do not support this assertion, the logical option was to present our information knowing that it would be controversial in some circles, with the hope that it would promote renewed open-mindedness and prompt further debate. We understood the challenge associated with changing engrained belief systems.
After our recent appearance on the Kevin Barrett Show, we decided to co-author this piece and explain to all that are interested what we really think based on what we understand from the information that can be accessed in the public domain.
The word that we need to pay particularly close attention to is STING. A sting operation is a highly scripted series of circumstances, chain of events, dialogs, actions and reactions that relies on exploiting the weaknesses of a target with the intention of causing a very specific outcome. All has to fall into place as choreographed or the sting may fail. The more complex the sting operation is, the longer it takes to develop and rehearse.
This sting that targeted bin Laden and yielded the “confession tape” hinged on the following circumstances. First, bin Laden needed to have done something horrific or been accused of having done something horrific that caused him to go into deep hiding. Second, bin Laden needed to be eager for information he could not access from his hideout. Third, the person who had this information had to have serious difficulties hiking up mountain trails or reaching caves. Osama bin Laden was more likely to go to this person, whom we later learned bin Laden knew and somewhat trusted, thereby giving the person and the sting team control over the meeting location. This is crucial as bin Laden seldom allows meetings on terms that require concessions. The person that bin Laden agreed to meet on different terms was the paraplegic, wheelchair bound Saudi sheikh - Khaled Al-Harbi.
The first two circumstances were satisfied by the events of 9/11. Osama bin Laden, suspected to be behind the attacks, wanted “dead or alive” by Bush, went into deep hiding. On the other hand, bin Laden, the devout Muslim, was unhappy to hear that some Muslim scholars view his alleged act to be against Islamic teachings. Osama bin Laden was eager, as revealed on the videotape, to learn how certain influential Saudi religious scholars viewed the attacks.
Once these two conditions were satisfied, the sting could be launched. The person in the wheelchair, Khaled Al-Harbi, and the rest of the sting team, his necessary travel companions – one of which had a hidden video camera, were mobilized in Saudi Arabia and headed towards Afghanistan.
HERE ARE THE FACTS: the first specific mention of a sting operation in the corporate media was in the form of a report by UPI from Pakistan. The date of that report was August 17, 2001.
UPI – August 17, 2001: “The U.S. government has requested Pakistan to provide active support for an operation inside Afghanistan to catch terrorism-suspect Osama bin Laden, a report said Friday. The United States has also discussed with Pakistani officials the possibility of "using U.S. special forces" for a sting operation inside Afghanistan, the newspaper reported.”
How could such a leak be interpreted when some believe that Pakistani authority and intelligence services are an extension of the CIA while others believe that at the time, they were supporters of Bin Laden?
It would be naïve to think that those in authority in Pakistan are a homogeneous camp; those in the Pakistani government who were genuinely on the side of bin Laden leaked the information.
I say that because they could have informed bin Laden of the sting operation either directly or through channels and did not have to leak it to the media. By leaking it to the papers (UPI), they were actively protecting bin Laden. The leak was an indirect message to the Americans that bin Laden was informed, thereby, making the sting more difficult to execute. Also, the leak was an embarrassment to the Pakistani authorities that could no longer co-operate even if they wanted.
If we can accept that there are factions within Pakistani government, we can also understand the extraction of bin Laden from Tora Bora by his Pakistani supporters.
The pro-American camp, led by the head of ISI, seems to have been playing a dual role on behalf of American intelligence. On the one hand, the head of ISI is reported to have sent Mohammad Atta, alleged leader of the 9/11 hijackers, $100,000 prior to 9/11. On the other hand, he spent two weeks after 9/11 at CIA headquarters in Langley assisting with War on Terror planning.
We need to carefully examine the period between August 17, 2001, the date of the leak to the Pakistani press of “a” sting operation, and, September 21, 2001, thirty five days later, the date when “the” sting team was dispatched from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan.
First of all, the sting scenario that yielded the “confession tape” is quite complex and could not have been developed between September 11, 2001, and September 21, 2001. Since it hinged on events similar to 9/11, it must have been developed by U.S. intelligence based on knowledge of bin Laden’s behavior after the bombing of the embassies in Africa or the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, meaning, developed prior to 9/11. This is clear evidence of prior knowledge of the 9/11 events that exceeds any notion that the only failure of the Bush Administration was its inability to connect the dots as then CIA director George Tenet described it. Some people “on our side” – Americans – knew clearly of the 9/11 attacks - and at a minimum – allowed the events to unfold.
Despite the fact that nobody working for or on behalf of the U.S. government has been prosecuted for their failings or involvement with the 9/11 attacks, there were creditable warnings in August 2001 about an al-Qaeda attack. Remember the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled “bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’', the starkest of warnings? The Bush Administration also received warnings from other countries, some of which were fairly specific. It could be assumed that the attempt to launch the sting operation in August 2001 through Pakistan was a high priority and urgent operation intended to stop the attack. Yet, American intelligence and law enforcement did not act with any urgency in the United States in terms of following up on leads by FBI agents and informants, alerting airlines, or even dispatching fighter jets after it was determined airliners were hijacked and the attack was unfolded.
That said, and considering its proximity to September 11, 2001, the fact that the August 2001 attempt to launch the sting operation through Pakistan had no visible urgency, and it is reasonable to suspect that the 9/11 events were allowed to unfold. Also, even though bin Laden’s camp within Pakistan thwarted the August 2001 sting operation, even before its details were shared with Pakistani authorities, it wasn’t the end of the operation. All that was needed was a different launching country to replace Pakistan. Iran was the next plausible choice.
The originally intended August 2001 sting operation was launched the day the sting team was mobilized from Saudi Arabia, September 21, 2001, ten days after 9/11. A member of the sting team tells us in the video released by the Pentagon that they left Saudi Arabia in a rush as soon as travel arrangements were concluded.
From that same tape, we understand that the sting team was composed of at least three individuals, two of which, volunteered after 9/11 to travel with the paraplegic sheikh to Afghanistan.
What I find incredible with the timeline, this ten-day period, is that these three individuals already had their passports, all three managed to get visas to Iran, and made transportation arrangements on very short notice. Not to mention having to contact bin Laden, convince him to meet with them, and agree on a meeting time and place on the Iranian-Afghani border through which they were smuggled.
We know the Saudi visitors were part of one of the most ingenious stings. Would those overseeing the sting wait until the last minute to secure Iranian visas, especially for the most critical member of the sting team, bin Laden’s lure, the visiting sheikh in the wheelchair?
The answer is no. Visas were secured way in advance, probably before 9/11, and all that was left was convincing bin Laden to meet with them.
Based on this evaluation of the time period between August 17, 2001 and September 21, 2001, it can be concluded that a component of U.S. intelligence had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and was poised to exploit it instead of stop it.
Ed Haas’ later work regarding the authenticity of the “confession tape” caught the FBI saying: “the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Ed also caught the FBI admitting that authentication work on the “confession tape” is in a sealed investigative file.
The FBI would rather say bin Laden is not connected to 9/11 because revealing the results of any tape authentication, a necessary process prior to submitting it in evidence to a Grand Jury, would have also revealed the complicity of U.S. intelligence.
This brings us back to the question: Is bin Laden truly responsible for 9/11?
The answer is NO. Osama bin Laden is a patsy in the sense that his terror plans where most likely hijacked by intelligence operatives and who was aided and abetted at every turn during the execution of the attacks. He may actually believe that he pulled off the sum of 9/11 with his own resources, but he did not. The plan might have originated with bin Laden, but covert intelligence operatives orchestrated the outcome and aftermath.
If law enforcement were allowed to do their work, bin Laden’s complicity would have been limited to conspiring and planning the attacks and thousands in Manhattan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, would have been alive today.
We join hands with everyone seeking the truth about 9/11. We add our work to that of others and our voice in calling for an international and transparent investigation into the 9/11 attacks and the wars that followed.
Please sign the petition as part of this global effort.Posted by Sheila on September 15, 2007 05:49 PM
A friend proposed the same kind of ideas the day of the attacks. I scoffed at his concepts at the time. Now, I'm not so sure.Posted by Stan Broyles on September 15, 2007 06:36 PM
Truther stupidity has struck hard and fast. Here's a little truth for you.
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.
"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
So, yes Shiela, he DID ADMIT IT. It wasn't some grand scheme.
As for all the other Truther manure, here's the best antidote
Those willing to read it, it's a fascinating view into physics, construction, and the willingness for people to look for conspiracies instead of focusing on the people attempting to kill you.
The concept that 50% of the population may give Truther's the time of day is hardly an endorsement of the validity of the arguement.
Finally, for WW, you may be surprised to learn that I actually agree that congress should have voted on a war with Iraq and that a formal war should have been declared. However, that does not preclude a President, any President from Jefferson to Bush, from acting as CinC and commanding troops.
As for the search and seizure of article IV, the Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution hasn't ruled on the Patriot Act, so until it does, it's Constitutional.Posted by Neal5x5 on September 15, 2007 09:01 PM
Neal5x5, the worldwide 9/11 Truth movement consists of many types of people, including pilots, architects, engineers and other professionals who simply see a lot of flaws in the governments official conspiracy theory and want an independent investigation into the 9/11/01 events. Referring to this group as "Truther Manure" and suggesting that the Popular Mevchanics Book is "the best antidote" is childish and one sided at best. One of those professionals who does so not believe the official story is former combat pilot Colonel Robert Bowman, who was also the head of the U.S. Star Wars program under two presidents. Check out http://www.patriotsquestion911.com These people are not truth manure Neal5x5
Yes, I was willing to and did read the Popular Mechanics Book that you have also read. Then I read a challenge to Popular Mechanics, David Ray Griffins book 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking:An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders Of The Official Conspiracy Theory'. This book, demonstrates the pitiful failure of Popular Mechanics 'Debunking 9/11 Myths' and shows that Popular Mechanis is easily debunked and just a shill for the governments conspitracy theory. Are you willing to read it with an open mind Neal5x5? I would also challenge you to actually get a copy and read the entire Official 9/11 Commission report, which is full of lies and ommissions and then read David Ray Griffins book 'The 9/11 Commission: Ommissions and Distortions' which challenges the governments attempted coverups of 9/11.
Here is a response to Popular Mechanics 9/11 Myths Book.Posted by WW on September 16, 2007 09:42 AM
Big breaking news,
BIGFOOT CALL PRESS CONFERENCE!!!
(Tonight on Keith Olbermann)
Make sure to set your VCR.Posted by Get Real on September 16, 2007 11:15 AM
Big Breaking News
World Trade Center #7, a 47 story tall highrise building that was never hit by an airplane and had small fires on several floors and collapsed exactly like a controlled and near free fall speed.
The 9/11 Commission Report does not even discuss this in their report. N.I.S.T. has no answer either.
Go to google and watch the collapse and then please explain all how this collapse is possibe without explosives.
Don't have a VCR but a DVD recorder.Posted by WW on September 16, 2007 11:48 AM
stephanie,ww and sheila,How many years did it take you idiots to get so stupid?For once will you idiots look up the facts before you post.Posted by Keith on September 16, 2007 01:16 PM
Concerning Building #7- Read it and weep!
If Bush was so smart as to get away with being behind 911...
Why didn't he plant WMD's to be found in Iraq?Posted by Get Real on September 16, 2007 06:25 PM
Even Moonbat Bill Maher thinks you all are lunitics.
Posted by Get Real on September 16, 2007 06:51 PM
What's up with that?
Even Get Real is enouigh of a fool to waste his time watch ing Bill Maher and believe it like he does the official 9/111 Commission Report.Posted by Keith on September 16, 2007 07:25 PM
Get Real, you are like many defenders of the official conspiracy theory. I have said that I do not know who carried out the 9/11 events. I have no idea and I just want an independent investigation and I do believe the official story. That's all.Posted by WW on September 16, 2007 07:36 PM
I am an idiot!Posted by Keith on September 16, 2007 08:01 PM
Who do you think is "independent" enough to study 9/11, I know I think we should ask Adminhijad, or even better we should ask Chavez to do it, since they know so much......Posted by Heather on September 16, 2007 08:01 PM
No Heather , only you are independent enough. You knows a lot . Ms ndependent Heather who can't even read the official 9/11 Commission report and barely enought education ot read the RMN.Posted by Keith on September 16, 2007 11:09 PM