Imagine Bushco had PREVENTED 9-11...

How successful would they have been in implementing their agenda of tax cuts etc..?

What would the political landscape look like now?

Tax cuts working hand in hand with trickle down economics require a period of high deficits. So it can only be implimented in times of war because it isn't a compliant system to the Bananced Budget Amendment. The Bananced Budget Amendment is put on hold in times of war, thus, the war is essencial to their domestic budget plan.


Sorry, I know, sorta depressing huh?

Well the repukes wouldn't of wrapped themselves in the american flag whenever they do something, no war in iraq and bush wouldn't have a leg to stand on cause anything he has done was in the name of "terrorists".

the world would be a better place.

9-11 was instrumental, indespensible manner to advance their agenda. And Clinton stopped plenty of plots, but doesn't get any "points" for having done so. It's their JOB. It's like the Chris Rock routine about fathers. Bush didn't do his damned job, that or he planned and/or knew about it.

deep shit. If you remember,Ken Lay went to DC in 2001 with a tin cup looking for a 6 billion dollar handout
to keep Enron from dying. Lay failed to get the funds to keep open a business that ripped off customers in California.No 911 would have meant Enron and the close ties between bush and lay would have been the top news for months. Go to the smoking gun website and read the 40 letters between bush and lay. The chance of a newly appointed prez to be impeached was high. Its moot today, 911 did come off on schedule with help from this crime family.

;)

and Tom Clancy.

;)

their agenda would not have changed one iota. In fact I believe 9-11 is going to be their downfall before it is all said and done...

..and said something about the spying.





Merry Spooky Christmas!

Instead of appointing a king.

I think you guessed it was a rhetorical question...

I've thought a lot about this, but I can only get so far. We lived in San Diego in the mid 1990's. We, in fact, had one of the groups of hijackers living within a mile or two of us in Clairemont, though we did not know it at the time. They had moved into the area in the mid-late 1990's. So, as we approach 2001, they had laid their plans, completed their flight schools, bought their plane tickets, and were in the last stages of carrying out their plan.

At this point, how could Bush have prevented it from happening?

No one knew these muslim men were going to do what they did. There were not laws to eavesdrop on them, intercept their mail, discover their plans. They hadn't acted as anything but normal consumers at their flight schools, so they could not have been followed, wiretapped, or scrutinized there.

There were no provisions for profiling, detaining, or imposing strictures on muslim men--even if they had suspicions that these particular men were planning something monsterous. There were no provisions for searching them more thoroughly the day they flew--or even knowing that they did plan to fly that day and that passengers needed better searching for weapons.

To my knowledge, there was not adequate informants or infiltrators that had intelligence on them--and there was no way to know who they were, what they planned, when they planned it, and how they were going to carry it out. Any measures then that could've been taken to target them, spy on them, scrutinize them, detain them, interrogate them, investigate them and their flight schools are the very things today that are being labeled egregious violations of our civil rights/their civil rights.

How could Bush have prevented what they did on 9/11/2001? Was there something that Bush should have been doing that could have stopped them? Was there some laws protecting our safety that were ignored? Was there some intelligence on a specific plan that was read, but not believed? Did it have no action taken on it? Where was the negligence of the administration? What didn't Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie/Ashcroft etc. not do? What did the CIA/FBI not do that they should've done? What should the Pentagon and our military done that it did not do? What laws existed to protect us from the very thing that happened that were not acted on?

but...I've been reading up on politics virtually every day since 9-11 (like most veteran DUers)...that includes New York Times, (London) Times, (London) Guardian, LA Times, Washington Times, Washington Post, (London) Daily Telegraph..not to mention all the other international newspapers and official documents/court transcripts/911 Families websites etc etc linked to on DU.

From that vantage point I know that there's a lot more information and evidence out there than ever makes it onto the TV news or documentaries.

I'm not an expert and I don't have time to summarise everything (just like a sports fan who's been reading up every day on his favourite team for the last four years couldn't summarise his knowledge in a paragraph) but...I'd advise you to keep your eyes open, have a look round some more DU threads (if you're new)...and keep an open mind...

I just want some specifics. I feel that, if we have another attack in our near future, I want to know EXACTLY who should be accountable for it, what laws exist for our protection that need to be upheld, and who needs to act and when. We might've been caught unawares the first time, but we shouldn't be now.

I'm nervous about the future and it seems like the only way I can get a handle on it is to understand the past--and make sure it doesn't happen again.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't know where you got that 'your boy' crap just because I asked for a specific explanation (which you did not provide, BTW).

Let's suppose it WAS 8:47 a.m. that morning. How many planes were in the air over America? How was the administration able to know that there were more hijackers aboard more planes, what their plans were, where they would take over the plane, and what they planned to do with it?

There was no law that I know of that would've allowed the feds to know who was aboard the planes, and what the hijackers eventual plans were.

I'm asking the question: How were the Feds, at 8:47 the morning of 9/11, able to know that at 9:05, or 9:28, or 9:55--or whatever the times were--to know that some muslim men on three more airplanes would stand up, use box cutters to hold the crew hostage, take over the plane, and crash it into the 2nd tower, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania? And what could they have done had they known? Was there any provision for shooting down a full airliner full of Americans over populated areas? What law was on the books respecting that scenario?

If what you're saying is true--that Bush & Co. was in on it--then the answers to those questions should be easy to come up with.

pill, see sig. link to begin...

It included a lot of facts about general conditions, suspicions, portents, warnings, functions of government, spy capabilities, intelligence, etc. It did not contain specific information on how, on the morning of 9/11/01 the feds knew those particular 19 muslim men boarded airplanes, had box cutters on them which would be used as weapons, and that an hour, hour and a half (or whatever the time frame was) later, would hijack the plane and crash them where they did.

In other words, keep it simple: With Atta in line to board his plane that morning, what should have been in place that would've allowed the feds to stop him?

See story here-
http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/04-19-02_Hopsicker.pdf

Also here-
http://www.madcowprod.com/books.html

It's fine to give me sweeping articles on Norm Mineta hearings, Atta's itinerary before the tragedy, legislation, laws, intelligence, rumors, spying, facts about flight schools etc. However, if you want that high school student who now votes, a grandmother in Newark, my neighbor's dad that is a manager at Sears, an aunt who does ceramics, the local secretary at the AAA office, the guy sorting apples in a warehouse, a crabber, a Hispanic mom with 3 kids, and Filipino lady studying to be a medical assistant etc. to understand the truth in what you say, you're going to have to be able to boil it down to Atta being in line to board the plane--and what the government had to do to stop him that it did not do.

Keep it simple.

Like when NORAD knew specifically which planes were hijacked, which ones had their transponders turned off, which ones deviated severely from their flight plans, etc.

If you navigate around you will also see a lot of other things that might disavow you of some of your preconceived notions about the whole thing. But I won't hold my breath.

"then the answers to those questions should be easy to come up with"

Yes, with this administration they are really forthcoming with answers, huh? Like that video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. :sarcasm:

So the "your boy crap" seems entirely appropriate in this case, as you seem more of an apologist rather than someone genuinely seeking answers.

And if you get your panties in a wad over things some guy posts on the internets, you have deeper issues.

Enjoy your stay.

Asking for concrete answers isn't 'apologizing' for anyone. I'm a Big Sister to a 11 year-old girl and she asks questions that I'd like to be able to explain--and she's not going to be able to understand complicated plots and policies, murky suppositions, extrapolations, or assumptions. She needs something clear and linear--and so do I.

I can see this is not a site to come to to ask questions and get answers.
Sorry for my mistake. I won't do THAT again.

In whatever you tried to do, you succeeded wonderfully.

and he failed in his job and now he is spying on Americans *in* America.

He is profiting from an illegal war, and making his War industry pals rich in the process, making us lose any credibility we have on the international scene, and flushing money down the toilet (OUR money), while chipping away at programs designed to help the less fortunate.

If you can't explain that to an 11 year old, well, tough shit for you I guess.

that's why generally 11-year-olds aren't nuclear physicists, politicians, rocket scientists, secret agents, foreign policy experts etc.

But...let's take 9-11 at face value: apart from all the general warnings, military exercises, intelligence material etc they didn't actually know the flight numbers on 9-11 or the exact plan of the hijackers.

So, you're the president sitting in a classroom and you've just heard "America us under attack". What you do?

I wouldn't sit there listening to kids reading about a goat for 20 mins.

The chief of staff would politely tell the children that the president has to attend to some other business. If there was a way to force a news blackout on the reporters at the scene I'd do that too until I knew what was going on.

Then I'd say "get me TV's tuned to all the news channels and half a dozen phone lines - I want to know WTF is happening and what are we gonna do about it?".

bush and his asshole cronies dropped the ball as soon as they started their occupation of the White House - there were plenty of warnings about 9/11 - including one that said BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE (dismissed while bush was on his month-long vacaton0; bush inc WANTED something to happen so they could do pretty much what they are doing now

The war is expensive and the tax cuts are causing the government to run up a huge deficit that even has some conservatives annoyed.

Though we might still be having the war in Iraq. I've always thought 9/11 got in the way of Iraq a bit. I think we would have come up with a reason to go in sooner if we didn't have to make some show of going into Afghanistan first.

Mz Pip
:dem:

of pre-emptive war, as per the PNAC prediction.