For the conspiracy theorists among us...

[Martrae]

No evidence commanders lied over 9/11: report
Aug 5, 7:31 AM (ET)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - There is no evidence that senior Pentagon commanders intentionally provided false testimony to about the military's actions on the morning of the September 11 attacks, according to a report by the Defense Department's watchdog agency cited in the New York Times on Saturday.

The Pentagon's office of inspector general said the Defense Department's initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping, the newspaper said in an article on its Web site, citing the newly released report.

In a report dated May 27, 2005, but not released until Friday, the inspector general's office found that "the inaccuracies, in part, resulted because of inadequate forensic capabilities," including poor log-keeping at military air traffic control centers, the newspaper said.

The report was initially classified secret but was released under a freedom-of-information request by the Times. What amounted to several pages' worth were blacked out on national security grounds, the newspaper said.

The Pentagon had initially suggested that the North American Aerospace Defense Command had reacted quickly to reports of the hijackings and been prepared to intercept and possibly shoot down one of the hijacked planes, United Flight 93. But investigations determined that the Pentagon was not aware of Flight 93 until after the aircraft had crashed into a Pennsylvania field.

The September 11 commission then requested that the inspector general investigate why senior military officials made so many inaccurate statements to the commission.

A spokesman for the inspector general's office, William Goehring, told the Times that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report, but he suggested it would exonerate them. "We haven't found any information to indicate that testimony was knowingly false," the newspaper quoted Goehring as saying.

The report said commanders had found it difficult to create an accurate timeline of the events of September 11 because of the lack of a well-coordinated system in logging information about air-defense operations, the Times said.

And, newly disclosed audio tapes provided to the commission by Norad demonstrated widespread confusion within the military on September 11, with many commanders uncertain whether the reported hijackings were part of an unannounced military exercise.

[mofish]

Man thats just what the WANT you to believe!

The government brought the WTC down with planted explosives.

And a plane didnt hit the Pentagon either. All the passengers on that flight are being kept at Guantonamo!

/medication

[Narrock]

Conspiracy theorists crack me up

[Harrison]

I still want to punch people in the face who believe the WTC was brought down with a combo of a planned attack and planted explosives by our government.

[Diekan]

I don't think the government planned the attack, nor do I think they carried it out.

However...

I DO believe that they knew an attack such as that had been planned, but they obviously either didn't take the threat serious enough, or they simply turned a blind eye to it. Of course the complete and utter break down of communication between the various agencies also played a role.

I can't see the government intentionally standing by and allowing thousands of it's own people die to justify an agenda. Then again, maybe they would...

Let's just say that while I don't think the government had a hand in it (I don't think that baboon we call a president has the brains to conjure up something of that scale on his own) - I really wouldn't be suprised to find out they actually did.

Maybe some day someone will write a screen play for a movie... "B for Baboon."

[Lionking]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -6538r.htm

Newly released Justice Department memos show that September 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism.
As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.
(none)
"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
"Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," she wrote.
The documents — released yesterday by the Justice Department at the request of two Senate Republicans — drew renewed calls for Ms. Gorelick to testify publicly before the September 11 commission about the so-called "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence agencies that many have blamed for allowing the 2001 terrorist attacks to occur.
Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said yesterday that Ms. Gorelick's policies regarding the wall contributed to "blinding America to this terrible threat."
Also, he said, the newly released memos raised apparent conflicts with statements Ms. Gorelick has made recently defending herself and her role in the Clinton Justice Department.
"These documents show what we've said all along: Commissioner Gorelick has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to the erection and buttressing of 'that wall' that, before the enactment of the Patriot Act, was the primary obstacle to the sharing of communications between law enforcement and intelligence agencies," Mr. Cornyn said.
In a June 19, 1995, memo, Ms. White recommended a series of changes to a Gorelick policy that went beyond legal requirements in separating law- enforcement and intelligence agencies.
For instance, Ms. White said the local U.S. Attorney should be notified as soon as "criminal law enforcement concerns exist" while investigating terror suspects.
Deputy Director Michael Vatis rejected her recommendation.
"Notifying the [U.S. Attorney] as soon as law enforcement concerns exist — but before [the criminal division] thinks that the investigation should 'go criminal' — is simply too early," wrote Mr. Vatis, who was concerned that Ms. White's proposal could result in "prejudicing a possible criminal prosecution."
In a handwritten note to Attorney General Janet Reno, Ms. Gorelick wrote, "I have reviewed and concur in the Vatis/Garland recommendations for the reasons set forth in the Vatis memo."
The extent of Ms. Gorelick's involvement, spelled out in these memos, in buttressing the law enforcement-intelligence wall also raises questions about statements she has made recently defending herself and distancing herself from the decisions about the wall.
Asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer earlier this month about whether she had written a memo helping establish the wall, she replied: "No, and again, I would refer you back to what others on the commission have said. The wall was a creature of statute. It's existed since the mid 1980s. And while it's too lengthy to go into, basically the policy that was put out in the mid-'90s, which I didn't sign, wasn't my policy by the way, it was the attorney general's policy, was ratified by Attorney General Ashcroft's deputy as well in August of 2001."
Also yesterday, another group of Republican senators pressed their case for Ms. Gorelick to testify publicly and poked a hole in the reason the commission has given for not calling her.
Last week the commission's leaders received a letter from 11 Republican senators, led by Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, calling on Ms. Gorelick to testify in public.
The panel refused, saying that commissioners have only called former and current attorneys general and FBI directors to talk about the intelligence-law enforcement division, not their deputies.
They specifically listed four Justice Department deputies they did not call to testify, including Larry D. Thompson, a onetime deputy to Mr. Ashcroft.
But in a letter back to the commission yesterday Mr. Bond and his colleagues said Mr. Thompson, who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, did in fact publicly testify about his time as deputy, and commission records include a transcript and video archive of his testimony.
"Even before the horrific events of September 11, I witnessed firsthand, as the deputy attorney general, some of the problems that we in the department had with sharing information," said Mr. Thompson, who appeared before the panel on Dec. 8.
Mr. Bond and his colleagues said Ms. Gorelick has critical information she can provide about the same topic, and said her private interview with the commission is not enough.
"We believe, as was the case of [National Security Adviser Condoleezza] Rice, that public testimony by the decision-makers best serves the commission, the public, and ultimately Congress," the senators said, pointing to similar sentiments Ms. Gorelick herself expressed during the debate over Miss Rice's testimony.
"Unless Ms. Gorelick provides public testimony, like other key officials have done, there will be a significant gap of knowledge as far as what the public will know about its government prior to 9/11," they wrote.

[Spazz]

Why do you think they call it a cover up. If you beleive all the facts on 9/11 add up then i have a bridge to sell you. Im not sayin it was brought down by bombs the plane was shot down etc but im not saying it wasnt either. All I KNOW about 9/11 is that something doesnt smell right. And it made a lot of people act real strange.

[Diekan]

It wouldn't be the first time the American government has "allowed" for a terrible event to unfold so that they could gain sympathy for their agenda. Hi... Pearl Harbor.

The greatest act of patriotism you can display is to distrust your government. I trust the United States government about as far as I can throw an M1 tank.

Speaking of "B for Baboon" - one of the best lines I have heard from a movie, in a very long time, was in "V for Vendeta." "People should not fear their government, the government should fear its people." (not an exact quote). In our case - the US government doesn't fear us... it sees us as stupid, blind sheep.

Would the US government attack us? Not sure... Did they? I doubt it. They wouldn't have too.

If all it takes to win a lease to the White House is to proclaim that you'll stop homo's from getting married... do you really think they need to go as far as allowing for thousands of people to die to create an air of vengence leading to war? The answer - I really don't know.

George W Bush is by far one of the stupidest presidents this country has ever seen - which doesn't say much for the American voter.

Anyway, who knows at what extent the government will go to protect its interests - which typically are not the interests of the American people.

[Jay]

World trade center was masterminded by 2Pac and Elvis on their hidden island in Atlantis.

[Diekan]

i thought it was really a big conspriacy by the jews of hollywood to make billions off made for tv movies, a block buster film or two and millions of memorabillia items... ohh and to also throw us into war with the middle east to help their homeland's agenda to wipe out islam!

[Martrae]

In our case - the US government doesn't fear us... it sees us as stupid, blind sheep.

That's because that's what the educational system has made us. Let's see...who controls the educational system? Why, it's the government! Amazing how that works out...

[Lionking]

i thought it was really a big conspriacy by the jews of hollywood to make billions off made for tv movies, a block buster film or two and millions of memorabillia items... ohh and to also throw us into war with the middle east to help their homeland's agenda to wipe out islam!

Hi Mel!

[Harrison]

I laugh at people who call the most powerful man in the world stupid.

[Diekan]

The CEO of Exxon is no moron.

[Harrison]

[Narrock]

I laugh at people who call the most powerful man in the world stupid.

No shit =p

Just because he's not a good orator doesn't make him "stupid."

[Diekan]

LOL considering the sources... namely you two twits... I'm not overly concerned.

[Narrock]

LOL considering the sources... namely you two twits... I'm not overly concerned.

You calling me (or Harrison for that matter) a "twit" is pretty funny in and of itself.

[Harrison]

Seriously, you're trying to act like you're more important than the fucking president. Get over yourself.

[Diekan]

LOL considering the sources... namely you two twits... I'm not overly concerned.

You calling me (or Harrison for that matter) a "twit" is pretty funny in and of itself.

Just stick to discussions on child porn and stalking and leave the adults to their conversations.

[Arlos]

Bush is a moron. It is not just HOW he says stuff (though that's pretty bad), but listen to WHAT he says then he's speaking off-script. He truly has no clue. He is, however, cunning enough to have surrounded himself with at least some intelligent people that he occasionally listens to. Karl Rove, for example, is quite smart, if entirely unethical. Cheney likewise is reasonably bright, though soulless and evil. Note that I wouldn't call someone a moron just cause I disagree with them; Nixon for example I consider one of the most damaging presidents this country has ever had, if not THE most damaging, and I would never call him anything but extremely intelligent.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

LOL considering the sources... namely you two twits... I'm not overly concerned.

You calling me (or Harrison for that matter) a "twit" is pretty funny in and of itself.

Just stick to discussions on child porn and stalking and leave the adults to their conversations.

stfu dumbass

[Diekan]

It doesn't matter what Bush does... he said Jesus put him in the White House and that's all Mindia needs to follow him blindly into the mouth of hell.

[Jay]

I think Bush is a stupid, close-minded dillhole but not a terrible guy. He sucks at his job but he's not a terrible person.

[Lyion]

Bush is a moron. It is not just HOW he says stuff (though that's pretty bad), but listen to WHAT he says then he's speaking off-script. He truly has no clue. He is, however, cunning enough to have surrounded himself with at least some intelligent people that he occasionally listens to. Karl Rove, for example, is quite smart, if entirely unethical. Cheney likewise is reasonably bright, though soulless and evil.

Bubble up Moonbat Moonbat. Your barking moonbat advisory was just raised!