Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So, was 911 planned in seven and a half months...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 01:26 PM
Original message
So, was 911 planned in seven and a half months...
Bushco right?

So did they start planning MIHOP before he was "selected", banking on the fact that he would win?

Was the MIHOP planning and all preparation- explosives, missles for Pentagon, etc., all done in seven and a half months?

Or was the closeness of the Florida election and SCOTUS decision all pre-planned as well along with MIHOP?


Has to be one of the three right?


Also, you have to weave in the patsy hijackers right- the training schools, strip clubs, everything as well into MIHOP (all items pre-election)


I notice nobody ever talks about timeframes for MIHOP..... hmmmmm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
able1 Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Impossible to know.

If the gov't planned it, we'll never know when the planning began.

If al-Qaeda planned it, we'll never know when the planning began.

How is it productive to even wonder about how long the planning took and when it began?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. So the election of Chimpy as President
was of no consequence---

I disagree with your premise
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. No. The planning began perhaps as far back as 1998-99 but
it's impossible to know without a new, more thorough, and less-slanted investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aldo Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well the PNAC Pearl Harbor wish was published 9/2000
So that pushes it back a bit. I would imagine that several years went into the planning by the Bush/Neocon/antipatriot intel & military parties.

Project for the New American Century: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm (W. R. Pitt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. The neocons were yammering about removing Saddam since '97-'98..


January 26, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:



{snip}

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm



Look at the neocons embedded in high political and military positions. Cheney & Rumsfeld were co-conspirators from way back in the 70's:

But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated? And how could billions of dollars taken as taxes from average working people be transferred to the companies that Rumsfeld and Cheney - and their cronies - would soon work for and/or run?

Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear.

They did it by claiming that the Soviets had a new secret weapon of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody knew about but them. It was a nuclear submarine technology that was undetectable by current American technology. And, they said, because of this and related-undetectable-technology weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work or have businesses relationships with.

The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0213-28.htm


9-11 was the *New & Improved!* Operation Northwoods V2.0 ... orchestrated by the cockroaches of PNAC.....


Peace,

Ghost

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. They had similar plans in the works since the early sixties.
And high level connections to the Sunni Jihaddis for decades. They knew chances were good they could at least steal it if not actually win. So Junior steals it and... "Ding!" the big business plan gets green lighted.

Oh, but I guess you have a point - I'm sure intelligence assets are never trained for assignments unless the intelligence organizations know for sure they will be carried out. They never think of contingencies.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. They knew they would take Florida
by any means necessary.

One thing we've learnt is that once the Cheneycons set a goal they don't flinch, they just keep going, make it up as they go along if they have to, but stay fixed on that goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. What about the other states, they knew all the states Chimpy would win
really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. Good questions.
If we had a real investigation that was focused on telling the American public the truth, maybe we'd get real answers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Not making any sense.
Why would Bush have to be sworn in first before elements of the US government could work on a 911 plot?

Have you never considered that there may be parts of the government (parts of the CIA for example) that are not effectively under control of the President?

When Obama was inaugurated, did all of Cheney's moles instantly get turned into pumpkins by their fairy godmother?

Not making any sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
able1 Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. You've got a point there, friend. EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC