marcosolo 
webradio |
Tages-Anzeiger (deutsch) |
 michael moore |
Mondlandungs Lüge |
Spiegel (deutsch)
|
Bush Lies(english) | Mastermind of 9/11 | questions to 9-11 | my own |
 Tages-Anzeiger online
|
|
Google-news | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 the world according to marcosolo |
|
Samstag, 31. Januar 2004
marcosolo, 31. Januar 2004 um 21:17:31 MEZRice says prewar Iraq data flawed By Adam Entous, Reuters, 1/30/2004 comments by marcosolo 1/31/2004 WASHINGTON -- President Bush's national security adviser yesterday acknowledged there may have been flaws in prewar intelligence about Iraq but brushed aside calls for an independent investigation into the matter. ms: would Saddam have ordered an independent investigation into his own secret affairs? Unfortunately there exists no higher independent institution in the decomcracy of the United States wich could force these bankrupcy creators in the White House to allow all the curtains covering their ugly secrets to be lifted and thanks of Bush's earlier intervention there exists worldwide no international court which could order such an investigation "I think that what we have is evidence that there are differences between what we knew going in and what we found on the ground," Condoleezza Rice told CBS. But she added: "That's not surprising in a country that was as closed and secretive as Iraq, a country that was doing everything that it could to deceive the United Nations, to deceive the world." isn't it remarkable how well she knows her enemy? Only murders know the feeling one has killing a person. How nice she describes the actions of her own country and all the circumstances since JFK, the moonlanding and the events of 9/11. You seem to be a real insider. Be careful that they will not start one day an insider investigation on your own person in exactly the same matter you just accused Iraq - killing their own people using weapons of WMD even if in your own case their were planes and bombs used for the same purpose. Bush based his decision to invade Iraq last year on what he called a "grave and gathering danger" posed by Iraq's weapons. He acted without United Nations backing, cutting short efforts by UN inspectors to check out the weapons reports in Iraq. a clear warcrime, governor bush. You will receive your punishment one day if not in this life latest after death in hell... In a series of television interviews, Rice defended Bush's decision and said the United States may never learn the whole truth about Iraq's arms capabilities because of looting. as with the cement and steel brought away from the WTC in a top secret manner and believe it or not, the steel was brought to China and the cement and other relicts are stored in a secret location. You and the hole Bush administration deserves an entry in the Guiness book of records for deceptions of the century For months administration officials had expressed confidence banned weapons would be found. But after the top US weapons hunter concluded Iraq had no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons, the White House said on Monday it would review prewar intelligence. On Tuesday, Bush tempered his prewar insistence that Iraq had an arsenal of banned weapons. The White House said Rice was not breaking any new ground yesterday. "As we've always said, intelligence is never perfect," said one senior administration official. Rice said the US team hunting for Iraq's weapons would "gather all of the facts that we possibly can," leaving open the possibility that its findings may be inconclusive. She blamed gaps in data on looters who sacked government offices after the invasion and on ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, who she said was so secretive that "he allowed the world to continue to wonder" what weapons he still had. as in your case with the role of your administration and the secret services in the events of 9/11 Critics say the administration did little to secure sensitive sites immediately after the invasion, undercutting efforts to find the evidence of weapons. ... Link marcosolo, 31. Januar 2004 um 17:40:44 MEZ 11 Top Talking Points & Questions to 9/11 In examining these talking points, we ask the reader for an open mind, patience, and healthy skepticism. We ask only that you embrace your responsibility to think for yourself, because no one else ought to be doing it for you. Some of what follows may be hard to accept or difficult to believe. We suggest that you revisit, check and double check difficult points via the web (see point #11 below) or otherwise. Unanswered Questions offers these Top 11 Talking Points & Questions as a starting point for thinking about responsibility for the tragedy of September 11th and as offering direct lines for further, more formal, inquiry by a Citizens' Investigative Commission on 9/11. ========================================= :: Whistleblowers :: FBI agents Colleen Rowley (Minneapolis), Kenneth Williams (Phoenix), and Robert Wright (Chicago), amongst others, have courageously come forward evidence that their superiors derailed promising investigations that might have foiled the 9/11 attacks. While on the trail of terrorists, why were capable field agents hot blocked, thwarted, intimidated and undermined by their superiors at FBI headquarters? Surely claims of incompetance and inefficient beauracracy is missing the point. At a recent press conference, Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch has even suggested possible treason. How does the FBI hope to explain this pattern of blocking of legitimate investigations by capable field agents? Or will they explain? Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller by Coleen Rowley [edited version of 13 pp. memo] "Agent: FBI Rewrote Moussaoui Request," John J. Lumkin; Associated Press, May 25, 2002 Agent Wright encountered stonewalling, negligence, indifference and outright opposition by his superiors and FBI HQ ========================================= :: Insider trading :: After 9/11, investigations were launched around the world into suspicious pre-9/11 trading that clearly indicated detailed foreknowledge of the attacks. Bloomberg News documented massive spikes in put options (a bet the stock will fall) in specific companies whose stock did in fact fall precipitously once trading opened. Put option expert Phil Erlanger estimated that profits would have been in the billions of dollars. Amr 'Tony' Elgindy exercised trades that suggested prior knowledge of 9-11 as Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Breen pointed out to the court in a recent federal trial. So, where does this money trail lead? Why have we learned nothing from the SEC about who placed these trades? Do we not have a right to know ? "Massive pre-attack 'insider trading' offer authorities hottest trail to accomplices"; Kyle F. Hence; www.globalresearch.ca; posted April 23, 2002 Index of stories on insider trading posted at From the Wilderness "Stock Advisor Knew About Attack", US Suggests; Alex Berenson, May 25, 2002 Complete indictment of FBI linked insider trading circle (33pp) news.findlaw.com ========================================= :: Links to terrorists :: According to published and confirmed mainstream reports Mohammed Atta was wired $100,000 by the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, just prior to the attacks. The man who approved this wire, General Mahmud was meeting with top officials of the US government, including Intelligence Committee Chairmen Representative Porter Goss (R-FL) and Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) on the morning of the attacks. The FBI confirmed on ABC News (This Week, September 30, 2001) that the payment had come from banks in Pakistan. A short time later, former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad retired amidst the scandal that linked him to the payment. This was published in The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001 and AFP (Agence France Press), 10 October 2001 One might be forgiven for asking - is this the only case of ties between US organisations and those allied or connected to terrorists ? What of the Bush family's close ties to the Bin Laden family through their shared business concerns in the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest US defense contractor ? Are we in fact with the terrorists or against them ? ISI ties to Taleban Who is Osama Bin laden ? Manipulation of CNN and White House transcripts of Dr. Condoleezza Rice's May 16th Press Conference. (listen to original audio-video file), June 29, 2002 ========================================= :: Do warnings imply foreknowledge ? :: In the aftermath of the attack, the administration stated that they had had no warnings of an attack. Nine months later they concede that they had received general warnings of possible 'traditional' hijackings by Al-Qaeda. In actual fact, numerous reports were recieved from foreign intelligence groups and leaders in terrorist attacks. The Bush administration received warnings from Israel, Germany, Egypt, UK, and Russia, amongst others; some very specific. In light of detailed terrorist threat assessments, foiled plots or discovered plans involving planes as missiles, and G-8 air defense measures last summer (all well before 9-11) is it not preposterous and deceptive for the administration and the President to suggest that no one could have imagined that planes might be used as weapons? Is it not reasonable to ask who specifically received these warnings and what specifically was done in response? Why, in fact did the warnings not lead to a heightened state of readiness and an aggressive response by US Air Defenses on September 11th (as opposed to the opposite - see point four below) ? "CIA Admits Foreknowledge of 9/11", Larry Chin, Online Journal, May 6, 2002 "Air Force officer disciplined for saying Bush allowed September 11 attacks: Hijacker attended US military school;" Jerry Isaacs; World Socialist Website, Monterey County Herald; June 21, 2002 "Specificity of Method" Warnings, Kyle F. Hence [UQ Co-founder]; 5/18/02 "Echelon Gave Authorities Warning Of Attacks"; Ned Stafford; Newsbytes, May '02 ========================================== :: Air Defenses :: The first hijacking was known by Boston ATC at 8:28, (Village Voice, amongst others). The Pentagon admits to being aware of one hijacking at 8:40, (Boston Globe) and two hijackings by 8:50 (General Myers). General Myers told the Senate on Sept. 13th that "we did scramble fighter aircraft...after the Pentagon was struck". That is, fighters were scrambled at 9:40, a full hour later. A story that fighters were launched from Otis AFB and Langley AFB appeared in the press on Sept. 14th. Why the delayed report ? Rough calculations of the time and distance traveled show they would have been flying at less than half their top speed. Surely this was a situation requiring emergency measures? Flight 93 was in the air, with the hijacking confirmed, for more than half an hour before it crashed, but no interceptors launched from Andrews AFB, only 10 miles and mere minutes flight time away - even after a second (hijacked-confirmed) plane had struck the WTC (according to "official" government military sources). All this flies in the face of standard procedure. Why was the air response so inadequate? Sept 11: Unanswered Questions (140pp. deep analysis) Szamuely, George, 'Nothing Urgent,' New York Press, Vol. 15, No. 2, Zwicker, Barry, 'The Great Deception: What Really Happened on Sept. 11th Part 2,' MediaFile, Vision TV Insight, 28 January 2002, McMurtry, John, 'Decoding 9-11' ========================================= :: An 9/11 Investigation ? :: According to Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (1990-1996), 682 hijackings have occurred worldwide since 1972. All were thoroughly investigated. Nearly a year has passed and the four hijackings of 9-11 have neither been investigated by the FAA nor the subject of pubic hearings. A congressional investigation by a special joint House/Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has met behind closed doors, repeatedly delayed open hearings (most recently until September, 2002) and had their chief investigator resign. Precedent for convening immediate Investigative Commissions on issues of national security has been clearly established in the case of the Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination. Why is this so vehemently blocked and resisted by the Administration and others? Why, according to Senator Daschle, did both the President and the Vice-president lobby him for no investigation whatsoever? Why did 8 committees investigate Enron and only a single one, behind closed doors so far, undertake an in-depth investigation of 9/11? "Inquiry of Intelligence Failures Hits Obstacles"; Greg Miller; Los Angeles Times; May 4, 2002 Congresswoman McKinney Presses for Investigation of Bush Administration Links to 9-11; April 12, 2002 ========================================= :: Legal Action :: Increasingly victims' family members are taking the lead in asking questions of their government and insisting on an independent commision. Julie Sweeney, a past guest on Oprah who has refused what she refers to as 'government hush money' to instead pursue legal action, said that it is "patriotic to ask questions." Recently, members of three victims' families groups were present and posed questions at a national press conference (where Sweeney was a presenter) organized by UnansweredQuestions.org. Class-action lawsuits against government agencies and airlines suggests that enough evidence may exist to move on a legal front to find accountability and the truth. Why are Bush administration lawyers seeking to limit the victims' families access to global evidence in their suits against the airlines? Why have they sought torte reform to limit damages? "S.F. attorney: Bush allowed 9/11"; David Kiefer, San Francisco Examiner, 6/11/02 Mary Schiavo's speech before the National Air Disaster Alliance and Foundation 2001 Autumn Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., September 29, 2001 (Updated December 7, 2001 to reflect the changes in the law as signed by the President on November 19, 2001) UQ Wire: DOJ To Attempt Shut Down of 9/11 Evidence, by Tom Flocco ========================================= :: Rewarding Failure and Incompetance :: Outside of airport security screener, UQ knows of no instances of firings or reprimands issued as a result of 9/11 events. This despite the obvious failure of intelligence and air defenses, which, given the warnings received implies at the very least gross incompetence, egregious negligence if not worse. Rather than holding responsible individuals directly accountable, and insisting upon answers, we are instead rushing ahead and rewarding them with rich financial bonuses and budget increases. This comes on the heels of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld pre-9/11 confirmation in Congressional testimony that the Department of Defense had undocumentable 'adjustments' (ie. money unaccounted for) of $2.3 trillion. For comparison, the total federal outlay in the 2002 budget comes to just over $2 trillion. This staggering figure demands that we seek full disclosure of what's happened to taxpayer funds. Why are we throwing good money after bad without holding any one accountable for the worst breach of national security in history? "The Real Deal on 9:11: Rewarding Failure"; Catherine Austin Fitts, Issue #2, Global Outlook magazine, published by www.globalresearch.ca. "Not Important? Think Again!;" Chris Sanders, Sander Research, London, UK Budget figures ========================================= :: Anthrax :: Suspicions continue to swirl around an FBI investigation going nowhere after eight months of investigation. Despite early attempts to blame Iraq, it is now an established fact that all the Anthrax came from a US Army facility at Ft. Detrick, Maryland. Furthermore, respected scientist Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, has suggested that the FBI is dragging its feet even though it has a clear prime suspect within the US defense establishment. Recently it has surfaced that the White House was put on Cipro on the very morning of September 11th, more than a month before the anthrax attacks. Are we being subjected to a campaign of fear (ie 'terrorism') by people within our own government ? Report: Iraq Behind Anthrax Attacks. Oct. 15, 2001 (sources The Gaurdian, including quotes from a CIA official) Capitol Hill Anthrax Matches Army's Stocks Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks Whitehouse on CIPRO ========================================= :: Sleeping at the wheel ? :: Shortly after taking office, Ashcroft sent a memo to department heads outlining his seven top priorities. Counter-terrorism was not one of them. Two Star General Donald Kerrick commented "Clinton's advisors met nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden... I didn't detect that kind of focus from the Bush administration." A June 29th 2002 AP story states "President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions, officials say." In light of all the warnings described above and increased 'noise' or 'chatter' they now report receiving during the spring and summer of '01, why did they not give this matter the attention it deserved? How does this reconcile with Ashcroft's personal decision to heed an FBI threat assessment and not fly commercially in the weeks leading up to the attack? "Before 9-11, Terrorism was low priority for the Bush Administration"; AP / NYTimes; June 29, 2002 "Avoiding the real questions"; Jane's Intelligence Digest; May 28, 2002 ======================================== :: Top 20 web sites :: The following are 20 websites, in no particular order, selected from the hundred or more web sites that relate to this matter. www.copvcia.com / www.fromthewilderness.com www.democraticunderground.com (911-section) ============ Any one of these talking points (with supporting evidence and sources) taken on its own raises questions that require further attention. However, taken together, they build a compelling case that, at the very least, justifies our demand for a full, open and aggressive investigation as to accountability and a larger circle of culpability for the attacks of September 11th. Remember, these are only a starting points, and a 'first tier' of questions and talking points. Other sets of questions, and deeper analysis is already offered by other groups and investigators. It is our intention to facilitate the formation of a Citizens' Investigative Commission on 9/11 to take this one step further while building grassroots support for an aggressive, full and open governmental investigation with full subpoena power. Further questions and source links will be offered via UQ in the future. We shall never forget the heroes of 9/11, and all those who lost their lives in the attacks of September the 11th 2001.
... Link marcosolo, 31. Januar 2004 um 13:27:33 MEZ Think Again: 9/11 and the Bush Administration: Is Ignorance Bliss? by Eric Alterman January 28, 2004 Eric Alterman Flying under the political radar of a media obsessed with New Hampshire voters and missing weapons of mass destruction is the story of the White House's nearly successful campaign to quiet all criticism of its handling of the terrorist threat, pre-9/11. Every time a political figure raises the question of whether Bush and company might have been able to prevent the attacks if only they had been a little bit more on the ball, the Republican attack machine goes into hyperdrive to shut them down. Now the president and his allies in Congress are seeking to ensure that the 9/11 investigatory commission - whose work they have sought to undermine at every turn - will not have sufficient time to complete a thorough investigation. One wonders just what frightens them so much. The commission has been given only three months to complete its review of 200 interviews and 2 million documents, many of which had to be pried loose from an uncooperative executive branch that has done nearly everything it could to frustrate the commission's purpose. As former Commissioner Max Cleland, a former Democratic senator from Georgia, told Eric Boehlert of Salon last November: "I think the White House has made it darn near impossible to get full access to the documents by May, much less get a full report out analyzing those documents by May." The commission has requested a 60-day extension, which would place the report date uncomfortably close to the 9/11-anniversary-timed Republican convention in September 2004. Obviously, the administration will do everything it can to avoid that, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has already announced that he "can't imagine a situation where they get an extension." In the meantime, the right-wing spin machine is doing its darndest to ensure that any criticism of the president and his administration's lack of action to defend the country before 9/11 are ruled out of political bounds. And much of the media seems willing to cooperate. When retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark opined that "I think the record's going to show he [President Bush] could have done a lot more to have prevented 9/11 than he did," and that as president, Clark would do more, Fox's Sean Hannity termed the general's statement "reckless and irresponsible." Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" tried to shift the blame to the Clinton administration. And Ann Coulter - who oughta know - called Clark "crazier than a March hare." But anyone who studies the record with any care will know that there were any number of moments when it would have been possible for a more alert administration to intervene in such a fashion as to interfere and quite possibly thwart the hijackers' purposes. Here are just a few: What if Bush's National Security Agency had translated on Sept. 10, 2001 - instead of Sept. 12 - disturbing Arabic intercepts that referred to phrases "tomorrow is the zero hour" and "the match is about to begin"? What if the FBI had acted on the Phoenix memo and aggressively investigated - and arrested potential terrorists and illegal aliens who were taking flight lessons for the purpose of hijacking? What if the CIA had received and acted upon the Minneapolis memo, and combined with the FBI to apply its vast knowledge of al Qaeda operations to break up the U.S.-based network of fliers? What if the FBI and CIA had not mysteriously decided to drop their investigations of the whereabouts of hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar who, following their return from an al Qaeda planning meeting, continued live and work under their own names in San Diego? What if Bush and Cheney had seized upon the recommendations of the Hart/Rudman Commission rather ignoring - and pretending to review - them? What if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had agreed to the Senate and House Armed Services committee's request to reprogram $800 million from missile defense to terrorism protection? What if Bush's National Security Council had carefully studied the evolution of terrorist threats: to hide bombs on 12 U.S.-bound airliners and crash an explosive-laden airline into the CIA; to crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, CIA or the White House; and crash a plane into the Eiffel Tower or to the Genoan castle where Western leaders met in spring 2001? What if the same NSC had taken seriously the recommendations of Clinton counterterrorism chief Richard C. Clarke to institute an aggressive program in order to: attack the financial network that supported the terrorists, freezing its assets and exposing its phony charities, and arrest their personnel; offer help to such disparate nations as Uzbekistan, the Philippines and Yemen to combat al Qaeda forces; increase U.S. support for the Northern Alliance in their fight to overthrow the Taliban's repressive regime; and institute special operations inside Afghanistan and bombing strikes against terrorist training camps? What if the Bush Treasury Department had taken a less indulgent view of the kind of money-laundering operations that support terrorist networks and worked with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to try to curb it? What if Secretary Rumsfeld had green-lighted the use of the CIA's Predator surveillance plane over Osama bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan, armed with Hellfire missiles? What if Attorney General John Ashcroft had taken the initiative in speeding up the FBI request to add 149 field agents, 200 analysts and 54 translators to its counterterrorism effort, instead of vetoing it entirely to focus on his higher priorities? What if Attorney General Ashcroft, instead of simply deciding not to fly commercial like the rest of us, persuaded the administration to institute an emergency program to improve airport security to prevent hijackers from reaching their targeted weapons?' The administration and its allies rule all such questions out of order, going to extraordinary lengths to ensure they don't enjoy any political traction. When the issue was first raised, back in 2002, Vice President Cheney termed all suggestions "incendiary," and "thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war," Even the usually apolitical Laura Bush got into the act by calling the questions about what the administration might have done as an attempt to "prey upon the emotions of people." But Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), former chairman of the Senate intelligence panel and co-chairman of the inquiry, had a different answer. "The attacks of Sept. 11 could have been prevented if the right combination of skill, cooperation, creativity and some good luck had been brought to task." And because of the success of the administration's efforts to keep the commission from getting at truth-as well as a decided incuriosity on the part of the mass media, it's likely we will never know. Apparently, that would suit the Bush administration just fine. Eric Alterman is a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress and the co-author of The Book on Bush: How George W (Mis)Leads Americ ... Link Nächste Seite you were looking at my daily reports: |
|
online for 8365 Days
last updated: 15.12.12, 03:58  Youre not logged in ... Login
   powered by  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marcosolo's 
|
marcosolo webradio statistics |
Nord- Motorrad-trips in Nord Thailand
|