The lack of transparency

[noise]

IMO the political/media establishment considers it patriotic for a citizen to give up their privacy for the sake of counterterrorism policy. Yet eight years after 9/11, officials who held powerful jobs still have not accounted for their bizarre conduct. Regardless of ones beliefs about 9/11, one would hope everyone who posts in this forum would agree this is not acceptable government conduct. The issue isn't whether classified information points to a particular belief or not, the issue is that the information remains classified over eight years after 9/11.

An example: AFAIK, not a single MFR with an Alec Station or FBI UBLU agent has been declassified.

[BeFree]

1. Yep

I find it totally disgusting that some here would support the lack of openess given the evidence of the lack thereof.

Simply have to question what the agenda is that drives such actions.
We know why bushco shut down as much access as they could, but why would DUers act similarly?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. "some here would support the lack of openess"

"why would DUers act similarly"

Who has? You must have examples of this execrable behavior since it's got you worked up.

Or is this just more poisoning the well with smears and no actual evidence?

[SDuderstadt]

3. Take a guess, Bolo...

notice how the smear level dropped while BF was on "vacation"?

[BeFree]

5. Oh bolo

It is not you, nope, you are all for openess. But we have seen some here who would try to shut down debate, close down valid avenues of investigation and make conclusions based on little evidence.

[William Seger]

10. Your world seems to be full of delusion

... in which you are the hero of your own fairy tales. Pointing out that your "facts" are dubious and that your "reasoning" is fallacious is NOT any kind of attempt to "shut down debate, close down valid avenues of investigation and make conclusions based on little evidence." In fact, it's the exact opposite of that, and what you're saying is that you don't really WANT any debate; you want people to just uncritically accept your claims. Unfortunately for you, people DO attempt to engage you in debate, in an attempt to reduce the amount of manure spreading that happens in the vicinity of the "truth movement." If it wasn't manure, it would stand up to scrutiny, and you are simply looking for an excuse for why it doesn't. If you really cared about what really happened on 9/11, you'd appreciate those efforts to toss out the nonsense. But apparently, you have a different agenda: getting other people to believe what you believe, even if it's bullshit.

[BeFree]

27. What Iknow and what I believe

I know: We have seen some here who would try to shut down debate, close down valid avenues of investigation and make conclusions based on little evidence.

I don't really know what I believe. You seem to know. How do you do that?

I don't believe the OCT.

Frankly, I don't know what you believe, William. I am open to reading what it is you believe and if you want a debate, we'll have a go.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Please provide specific examples of anyone trying to...

"shut down debate, close down valid avenues of investigation or make conclusions based on little evidence", dude. You seem to not know the definition of "debate". BTW, I will concede that some here make conclusions based on little evidence...ummm, it's YOU, dude.

Dumb post.

[noise]

4. One possibility

to explain contentment with extreme secrecy is authoritarianism. By that I mean excessive deference to authority figures.

[BeFree]

6. Yep

But that acceptance of authority - in some cases here - seems to pertain to just one subject.

In broader fields there is deference to authority which everyone is guilty of to one degree or another. What is puzzling is that there is rare need for that deference. Its not as if a cop is standing there with his gun drawn (which is a damn good time to defer, eh?).

[noise]

7. An ignorant public is easier to manipulate into supporting the Afghanistan surge n/t

[noise]

8. Again we hear about the search for Bin Laden

When do we find out why al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were free to roam the US for 20 months. The Obama administration has those answers right now. They could release them right now.

Why is this important? Because these two men were ID'ed as al Qaeda operatives in late '99. Al Qaeda operatives=terrorists in Bin Laden's terrorist network. The importance of this issue doesn't go away simply because government officials exploit secrecy laws to conceal their conduct. It doesn't go away simply because the MSM pretends that the public and the government are both on the same page.

Two al Qaeda operatives already linked to previous attacks were not apprehended and eight years later it appears nobody in government has the decency to explain this. That is outrageous.

[BeFree]

9. Indecent and...

...scared. Anyone proposing to release such documentation is surely told their job would be taken from them. The orders would have to come from the WH. But the WH has probably been told their jobs are in danger if they let the secrets out.

Can you imagine the scared sheep that would be running around if the truth were known?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. What an ugly take on the world you have. n/t

[BeFree]

12. Not ugly, just real

People are scared. Scared to lose their jobs, their houses, their health.
They are scared of the mob, the gangs and the government.

They are scared of AQ, the Taliban and the whole Middle East.

And Bushco has given them good reason to be scared.
Wouldn't you agree?

[Bolo Boffin]

13. What a small, petty, ugly view of the world you have. n/t

[BeFree]

14. Bolo

Your focus on ol' BeFree is a pretty damned narrow view, eh?

Have you nothing better to do than harass me?

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Two posts (now three) is a "focus"? And I'm talking about your worldview, not you.

Have you nothing better to do than spread a hateful, petty worldview around?

[BeFree]

16. Actually

MY world view is that there is nothing to fear, and that having to fight the shadows put up by the powers that be is ruining what should be a beautiful view for everyone.

Ending poverty, hunger and disease is my world view.
You share that view with me?

[Bolo Boffin]

18. How noble and uplifting.

And drat all the fucking sheep that stay scared of Bushco and let them get away with murder. If only they could see...

If only one as noble as yourself could help the sheep to see...

*yawn*

[BeFree]

19. Am here...

...to help you, too, Bolo.

But you seem to be real angry with me trying to help. Why is that?

[Bolo Boffin]

20. You're here to help me too? Who asked ya? n/t

[BeFree]

21. Anger

Becomes no one unless it is focused on what makes one angry.

I apologize if I made you angry. Now, can we focus on the real problems like most of the rest of DU are doing?

[Bolo Boffin]

22. You don't anger me, you amuse me.

Let the cork out, already.

[SDuderstadt]

26. I would think the lack of real evidence for your goofy claims would...

lead just about anyone to decline your "help", dude. Your constant smears don't help, either.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Well, then...

maybe you should focus on ending poverty, hunger and disease, dude. Hopefully, you'll do better in that arena than your laughable take on 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Quit being a drama queen, BeFree...

Bolo is hardly "harassing" you, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

23. And, of course...

you have zero proof for this, right, BeFree?

Note: I'm starting the countdown now as to how long it'll be before you start yammering about how being challenged for actual proof of your goofy claims amounts to attempts to "shut down the debate".

[BeFree]

17. Transparency before the Attacks thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=678886

In the link above, it becomes apparent that the intelligence agencies knew AQ was planning the attacks. Coupled with the known facts of the August 6, 2001, presidential briefing, it is quite transparent that Bushco knew what was coming and LIHOP.

[BeFree]

29. Of course...

...it could very well be that in OBL's camps that Bushco agents were sitting around talking this whole game just so that in the event the event ever came to pass the intelligence agencies would have someone to point at and say: look, they did it. They were talking about it, they are the guilty ones.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Fucking unbelievable...

Are you seriously suggesting that 9/11 was totally planned in 8 months, or were "Bushco agents" already at work prior to the 2000 elections? Do you ever pause to reflect on how stupid many of the things you say are?

[BeFree]

31. I mean....

..we are dealing with the CIA types here. Masters at deception and misinformation. Whole careers based upon deceiving folks and framing others so that no leads trace back to themselves.

And if you read over the le Monde report, you come away with the feeling that the info there was centered on just one operation. There was not, as far as I can tell, any other operation exposed in that article. Just the hijackings. It is hard to imagine that the AQ only had one plan. But that's all that the story talked about.


Smells a little fishy, eh?

[BeFree]

32. And....

...who would think for one minute that the CIA didn't, or shouldn't, or wouldn't, have moles in the AQ? The CIA et al, did have agents prying into the AQ at every opportunity. Indeed, the Uzbeks in the le Monde article could have been CIA agents, or at least being paid by the CIA.

Sure, Bushco says they had no agents infiltrating AQ. What would be unbelievable would be if Bushco had said: "Oh yeah we have infiltrated AQ, we have had insiders for a long time." They wouldn't do that. They shouldn't do that. And they didn't tell the world that, even tho they did have agents in AQ.

Of course they did have agents close to AQ. The US had given AQ untold amounts of money over the years. AQ members were our enemies.

The US intelligence agencies had agents deep in AQ.