The 9/11 Commission Gets Ready To Speak

[floda]

According to this one part of it could be a bomb shell...


The 9/11 Commission Gets Ready To Speak
by DemFromCT
Sun Jul 18th, 2004 at 08:42:57 EDT

Previews of the final report are in the Washington Post; useful graphic comparison here.
I was especially struck by Condi's stonewalling during her televised hearings regarding the August 6 PDB. That would be when she said there was a warning "historical in nature" with "no new threat information" and suggested that the vagueness of the PDB perhaps pointed to an overseas threat. In fact, the language of the final report suggests that the Bush administration had warnings of lower Mahattan being targeted. The graphic linked above sums this up nicely along with other discrepancies.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/18/84257/0554

[ck4829]

1. My prediction on what will happen next...

It will probably slam the CIA, FBI, and the NSA.
It will probably also slam the Bush Administration.
Then...
The Bush Administration using Dick Cheney as a spokesman will then try to dispute the claims of the commission.
The 9/11 Commission was a ploy created by the Administration, I am not accusing anybody of anything, but I know I am not alone when I say there is much, much more to 9/11 than we will ever know. If the 9/11 Commission had more power, perhaps we would know what exactly happened on that day.

[nolabels]

2. How about they find worked up B.S. for Bushco to invade Iran............

After corporate America helps install him for a second term?

Regime change in Iran now in Bush’s sights


By Jenifer Johnston


PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.

Bush named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil along with North Korea and Iraq almost three years ago. A US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that military action would not be overt in changing Iran, but rather that the US would work to stir revolts in the country and hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership.

The official said: “If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran.”

The Iranian government announced this weekend that it had successfully eradicated all al-Qaeda cells operating in the country, but the statement comes as leaked reports from the US September 11 Commission show definite links between Iran and the September 11 terrorists.

The final report from the cross-party inquiry, which is examining the origins of the September 11 attacks, is believed to contain concrete evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran.
(snip)
http://www.sundayherald.com/43461

[ThomWV]

3. If You Are Suggesting That We Invaded The Wrong Country

I would probably agree with you. If we had to do it at all, which I do not believe is the case, then we should have chosen Iran to invade instead of Iraq. What I find somewhat amusing is that if we had invaded Iran instead of Iraq that it is pretty likely that Iraq would have been among the coalition of the willing. I think Iraq would have put aside Poppy's war and joined us against Iran. Still might for that matter.

[mark414]

4. say what

"A US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that military action would not be overt in changing Iran, but rather that the US would work to stir revolts in the country and hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership."

so iran gets to get rid of their conservative religious leadership?? aww no fair!

[hang a left]

9. Well looks like we have this in common, huh?

"hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership."

[jdj]

10. So how many times has this actually worked?

What are the chances Iraq will become more democratic and liberal with a 60% Shia population? And they are going to liberalize Iran, which is also Shia? I mean, when you de-stabilize a country, how many times, percentage-wise, does it become a democratic republic? Instead of a quagmire of wannabe alpha males gang-banging their way across the country side and shooting anything that moves...

What a bunch of freaking idiots... yeah, it worked for Lenin and Stalin, so it must be going to go swimmingly in Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan. If there is one thing I am sure of, it's that it can't be done without occupation. And if present circumstances are any indication, it can't be done WITH occupation either.

[freeforall]

5. Bush 2004 win = Unabated War-mongering

Wasn't surprised this week to see he has Iran in the crosshairs.

Vote Dem!

[KoKo]

6. It will be "spun" just as the WaPo article picks out the information for

the spin and Blitzer's CNN perpetuated the spin of "On to Iran" this morning. The pieces of this like the lies exposed in the WaPo "Chart" will be de-emphasized while innuendo and connections to Iran will change the focus from Iraq to Iran.

They will say: "Ah...we were fooled by the CIA into invading Iraq, it's good we are there, though, because now we can move over the border and go int Iran!" Killing two birds with one stone they will say is "Good" and bringing in the 40,000 Russian troops to help will mean success in our war on terroism.

[nolabels]

7. Gawd I would love to be there watching when they round up them traitors

All them air bag talk show hosts pontificating about the greatness of War.

I say ship all of them Nazi's from Fox and CNN to run point on the front line.

See how brave they talk then }(

[jdj]

12. No doubt.

CNN actually had some jerk-off retired general on there the other day, they were doing a stroke 'em up segment on him, and he had a picture of JOHN WAYNE in his living room, and he was all swooning over the john wayne type of masculinity, (which to me is what a severe lack of humanity bordering on psychosis looks like) and he quoted a line from a john wayne movie (a western) where the Puke says "Out here due process is a bullet." I almost threw up, and CNN is spinning this like this is what it is all about, and it's so disgusting because that line flies in the face of everything our constitution and country stand for. And CNN is practically air wanking this guy and his macho-fest with the lighting and timing, etc, of the interview.

You are right, they need to pay for their crimes of propaganda.

Iraq is not the old west where dickless american men can put inches on their unit by being incorrigible nazi-clones. I watched that show on PBS last night where they followed the photographers in Iraq, and it was brutal. Some of these guys are a cesspool of stinking hate, just waiting for an invasion and occupation so they can unleash it.

[acmavm]

8. Thanks to bush* & Co. Iran is now the big dog in the area. And Iran is

not going to go down the same way that Iraq did. Not to mention the fact that if we were to try to take Iran down, we would have to pull troops out of Iraq. And wouldn't the 'insurgency' love that?

There is no non-agressive way to remove Iran as a power in the Middle East. While there is an very large movement in Iran that wants to take the government back from the hard-core religious rulers in power now, I sincerely cannot see them backing any moves by the bush* administration to destabilize it. Better to let the Iranians change their government from the inside than for this administration to try to meddle into Iranian affairs.

bush* is an idiot. Iran has been attempting to developing it's nuclear weapons program for a long time now. Far longer than people are willing to admit. And why? Because of our backing of Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war that lasted what, seven or eight years. And the resentment from the aid that we gave Saddam plus the resentment that comes from our invasion of Iraq (even though it did eliminate one big problem for the Iranians) is immense. The Iranian man/woman on the street will not sit idly by while we try to bring down their government. Any progress made by the secularist in the country could be completely destroyed to the benefit of the ayatollahs.

pResident dumbass better get back on his hotline to God, because there was obviously some static on the line during some of their little talks.

[Malva Zebrina]

11. Is this verifiable?

I thought that fifty percent of the testimony and evidence will be witheld from the public until after the election. Did I get that right? And now we have a report, but we do not have all the evidence before us so we can verify that.

[struggle4progress]

13. 1998 report warned Clinton of bin Laden hijack plot

Posted on Sun, Jul. 18, 2004
By Susan Schmidt
The Washington Post


WASHINGTON - A secret intelligence report prepared for President Clinton in December 1998 reported on a suspected plot by Osama bin Laden to hijack a U.S. airliner in an effort to force the United States to release conspirators imprisoned for the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

The one-page declassified version of the president's daily brief dated Dec. 4, 1998, contains chilling information the CIA had gleaned from several sources indicating that al Qaeda was working with U.S.-based operatives of its deadly ally, the Egyptian group Gama at al-Islamiyya, in the purported hijack plot.

The brief shows that the intelligence community and the White House were aware of al Qaeda's interest in hijacking U.S. airliners long before 9-11. The day the brief was prepared, then-CIA Director George Tenet said in a memo to the intelligence community that "we are at war" and that no resources should be spared to defeat the terrorists.

A report to be released this week by the presidential commission investigating 9-11 will include the newly declassified document and a previously declassified brief from Aug. 6, 2001. It will also contain details of what the commission's executive director, Philip Zelikow, described Saturday as an "energetic response" to the hijack-threat information by the Clinton administration, including its efforts to determine whether the reports were true.
<snip>

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/9184194.htm