Someone replies to my previous post, "MSM gets the blame for everthing. It is bullshit ... think about it,Tom, the friggin voters went along. WE are responsible for letting him in. The MSM can only report news. Do you subscribe to the idea that the MSM has to pre-validate the virtues or non-virtues of candidates and elected officials? The MSM is a micrcosm of the voting population. Perhaps election reforms should include a requirement that candidates noses grow when they tell lies. People need to think for themselves. It sounds like the schoolyard kiddies telling the teacher .... BOBBY MADE ME DO IT! IT'S HIS FAULT !"
I respond:
You are just being an apologist for the powerful. We have every right to truthful news and MSM is simply failing at the role they advertise themselves as fulfilling. Stop trying to make excuses for them. The media is pushing a manipulative and deceptive world view, why are you trying to shift the blame for the wrongs they are doing? Don't make excuses for the MSM, thye are taking advantage of the public at large. We the people need to have an honest media system so we can exercise our right and responsibility of self rule. There are people undermining our democracy, don't make excuses for them for God sakes. We must not make excuses, we must set up a system of news and information that has enough checks and balances in it so that it truly serves the interests of the people and not just the elites.
Most of the time the manipulation and distortion happens by the things they don't report. We don't deserve to have the whole thing a constant game of manipulation! Stop shifting the blame away from the guilty parties and onto those that are being wronged! Such an apologist for the powerful you are and such contempt for the people you have. Those serving the dominant agenda want people to make excuses for them which seems to be the role you desire or maybe you don't understand what is happening in our system. Your statement, "The MSM is a microcosm of the voting population" I could not disagree with more. The MSM is most certainly not a "microcosm of the voting population" but is rather a minority of special interests that are and which serve elites.
What subservience to power you show when you go after the public for what is the malpractice of the media. THe situation with Bush is a disgrace, we need media that is reflective of the entire population. MAny viewpoints are simply excluded from the MSM's presentations. The glaring example I gave was noticed by others: "I can find not a single media outlet, broadcast, print or otherwise, that noticed the outrageous lie told by George Bush" So the media is not representing those that do see the lie. Why aren't you fulfilling your responsibility at self rule by holding those we put into power responsible? You should be thinking of a way to deal with the insult of the Bush Presidency instead of making analogies with the public as children. I notice a pattern, perhaps you think of the general public as children and those with power and privilege as adults?
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
The Emperor Has No Clothes and is Crazy.
Bush lied or is insane or is so ignorant and incompetent that it isn't funny at all. Bush thinks Saddam didn't let the inspectors in and that is why we attacked him! He has said it at least 3 times now and the media keeps letting him get away with it! Nearly all the media said NOTHING, this latest time I didn't see anything. One of the last times he said it, yes he has said it at least three times, the little bit said was so meek it was unreal. They meekly wrote that Bush "appeared to contradict the events." see Bush is still nuts and the media has really ignored it February 01, 2004For God sakes, the man started a war and he doesn't know the basics about why? The Emperor Has No Clothes and is Crazy. Can no one else see this?
"and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors" - Bush 3/21/06 THAT ISN'T TRUE!!! Oh God, does anyone else not see the seriousness of this? This man sent thousands of Americans off to die in a war and he doesn't know the basic facts?
"He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in. " - Bush 1/27/04
"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." - Bush 7/14/03
As I wrote back in Feb 2004, "Bush is still nuts and the media has really ignored it. TWO TIMES now Bush insanely insisted that Saddam didn't even allow the inspectors in so that is why we attacked him. The media is really hiding crazy stuff from Bush."
A letter to the editor about the most recent time Bush lied:
"I can find not a single media outlet, broadcast, print or otherwise, that noticed the outrageous lie told by George Bush in answer to White House correspondent Helen Thomas' question in a recent news conference. While everyone took the red-meat bait of Thomas' direct question about Bush's real reason for the Iraq war, no one listened to what he said.
Bush said "We worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him."
Everyone knows we didn't attack Iraq because the [weapons] inspectors were denied entry. It is a glaringly obvious lie told by a president who simply strings together the propaganda phrases — and no one noticed.
Have we become so numb to lies that we no longer hear them? Have we become so programmed to follow the conflict of the day that we have become blind to the obvious?
It is time to take stock of how deluded we have become. The media must wake up to their failings and address the big picture. We must quit being led around on a leash by the presidential propaganda machine. It is about the finding and reporting of truth." — Marc Sterling, Olympia
It really is amazing that Bush doesn't know that Saddam let the inspectors in or that he thinks he can lie about it. But apparently he can get away with it because the media is letting him get away with it. Think what an insult it is to the soldiers and the American public that Bush has told this falsehood three times and that the media is letting him without criticism. A very rare exception here.Parts of the transcripts from Bush 3/21/06, Bush 1/27/04 and Bush 7/14/03 below:
Bush on March 21, 2006:
HELEN THOMAS: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist, is that, you know, I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --
HELEN THOMAS: Everything --
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Hold on for a second, please.
HELEN THOMAS: -- everything I've heard --
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Excuse me, excuse me. No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy, but we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.
Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --
HELEN THOMAS: They didn't do anything to you or to our country.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al-Qaeda. That's where al-Qaeda trained --
HELEN THOMAS: I'm talking about Iraq --
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al-Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.
I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, ‘Disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences’ --
HELEN THOMAS: -- go to war --
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
-White House press conference, March 21, 2006
[and Saddam did disclose, the Bush team said Saddam was "lying"]
Bush on January 27, 2004:
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, Dave.
Q: Mr. President, but how do you describe and account for the difference between what you claimed prior to the war about what he possessed and what he was capable of, and what the intelligence said he possessed and was capable of in terms of a nuclear weapon within the decade, and the fact that David Kay says the intelligence was inaccurate and wrong, and nothing has been found? Don't you owe the American people an explanation?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I think the Iraq Survey Group must do its work. Again, I appreciate David Kay's contribution. I said in the run-up to the war against Iraq that -- first of all, I hoped the international community would take care of him. I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.
I said in the run-up that Saddam was a grave and gathering danger, that's what I said. And I believed it then, and I know it was true now. And as Mr. Kay said, that Iraq was a dangerous place. And given the circumstances of September the 11th, given the fact that we're vulnerable to attack, this nation had to act for our security.
Q: -- visas for Polish tourists coming to the United States?
Q: Visa. Visas -- do you offer anything on the visa policy for the Polish people?
Bush on July 14, 2003:
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dana, one last question.
Q: Mr. President, back on the question of Iraq, and that specific line that has been in question --
THE PRESIDENT: Can you cite the line? (Laughter.)
Q: I could, if you gave me some time.
THE PRESIDENT: When I gave the speech, the line was relevant.
Q: So even though there has been some question about the intelligence -- the intelligence community knowing beforehand that perhaps it wasn't, you still believe that when you gave it --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the speech that I gave was cleared by the CIA. And, look, the thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data. Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when I gave the -- when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech. I'm not interested in talking about intelligence unless it's cleared by the CIA. And as Director Tenet said, it was cleared by the CIA.
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.
Thank you.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Truth Seeping Through Media After Ten Months
David Swanson writes, "Ten months ago we started a coalition at www.AfterDowningStreet.org and organized people to demand coverage of the Downing Street Memos. ... In the ensuing months we've seen a lot of new evidence, smoking gun after smoking gun. ... those not paying close attention, not using the internet, not reading the international press, have never heard of many of the new pieces of evidence, which are listed on the left side of www.afterdowningstreet.org . It's become harder and harder to motivate those in the know to bombard the media with demands to inform those who need to be informed. ... The single most stunning piece of evidence that's passed unnoticed is the memo that two months ago we labeled the White House Memo. Philippe Sands discussed this memo in a new edition of his book "Lawless World," and the Guardian and the BBC reported on it. In fact, at the beginning of February, it was a huge story in media outside the United States Many of the articles that were published are collected here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/7436 "
Some in the media have started to report about the war plans memo but as Swanson points out, "The media has a long, long way to go still." Also see: white house memo
The memos show the President has been lying to us the whole time.
And what is Bush pulling now? "President George Bush has been holding off-the-record meetings with White House reporters for the past few days, an apparent first since he took office."
David Swanson writes, "Ten months ago we started a coalition at www.AfterDowningStreet.org and organized people to demand coverage of the Downing Street Memos. ... In the ensuing months we've seen a lot of new evidence, smoking gun after smoking gun. ... those not paying close attention, not using the internet, not reading the international press, have never heard of many of the new pieces of evidence, which are listed on the left side of www.afterdowningstreet.org . It's become harder and harder to motivate those in the know to bombard the media with demands to inform those who need to be informed. ... The single most stunning piece of evidence that's passed unnoticed is the memo that two months ago we labeled the White House Memo. Philippe Sands discussed this memo in a new edition of his book "Lawless World," and the Guardian and the BBC reported on it. In fact, at the beginning of February, it was a huge story in media outside the United States Many of the articles that were published are collected here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/7436 "
Some in the media have started to report about the war plans memo but as Swanson points out, "The media has a long, long way to go still." Also see: white house memo
The memos show the President has been lying to us the whole time.
And what is Bush pulling now? "President George Bush has been holding off-the-record meetings with White House reporters for the past few days, an apparent first since he took office."
Monday, March 27, 2006
Historian: Israel Warned Settlements Were Illegal in 1967
In Israel, a historian has revealed that Israeli ministers were secretly warned just after the Six-Day War in 1967 that any policy of building settlements across the occupied Palestinian territories violated international law. - Headlines for March 14, 2006 - Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 350 stations in North America.
In Israel, a historian has revealed that Israeli ministers were secretly warned just after the Six-Day War in 1967 that any policy of building settlements across the occupied Palestinian territories violated international law. - Headlines for March 14, 2006 - Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 350 stations in North America.
--- In DowningStreetMemo@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" wrote:
>
> I disagree with your claim that the controlled demolition theory was
> debunked merely by statements from police officers that they observed
> the building buckle ... --- In DowningStreetMemo@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" wrote:
The evidence is not limited to the eyewitness accounts, I wish you had read the article ( http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html ) because I included four photos that document what the witnesses were talking about.
If you were going to suggest that police in helicopters were told to lie (I don't know how in the world you could even begin to rationalize that)but we don't have to rely on them only, we have corroborating photographic evidence of the progressive failure ofthe buildings in the MINUTES (not seconds) before the buildings fell. THAT DOES NOTHAPPEN WITH A CONTROLLED EXPLOSION, in a controlled demolition a building does not show signs it is going to collapse in the MINUTES before it does. In fact, Griffin claims the lack of signs is one of the "proofs" of a "controlled explosion" with the WTC:
"SuddenOnset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse issudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, itsuddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings wereperfectly motionless upto the moment they began their collapse." -David Ray Griffin
Griffin says "there were no signs of bending or sagging." He is clearly extremely ignorant of the evidence or he is a liar.
The bucking of the exterior steel columns, in the minutes well before the buildings collapsed, disproves the idea that explosives brought the buildings down for the simple fact that explosives don't explode in slow motion over several minutes. The bucking of the exterior steel columns was witnessed and photographed inthe minutes - in some cases many minutes - before thebuildings camedown. see photos here: WTC photos show buckling steel columns in the minutes before the collapse of the buildings.
Many of the people pushing CD omit key facts and quotes. For example when CTists quote Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory they leave this part out:
"Idon't know if that means anything. I mean, Iequate it to the buildingcowing down and pushing things down, it couldhave been electricalexplosions, it could have been whatever." http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Guess why they left that important part out.
AsI pointed out, the exterior columns could be seen bending, in the caseof the tower that collapsed first the bowing was observed as early as18 min after the plane hit. The steel was observably bucking very early, it is why WTC 2 collapsed first. Beyond all reasonable and sane doubt, it was not explosives but rather what we can see in the photos, the progresive failure of the structure due to fire damaging the unprotected trusses adn causing the exterior columns to buckle (which we can see in the photos and which people reported they saw that day).
I must admit I find the "controlled demolition" and "inside job" theoryirritating since I see people wasting time on this nonsence and ignoring the brutal realities of the motives for the 9/11 attacks:
These are the real reasons and they has been stated for years:
The motivation for the attacks was set out in a 1998 fatwa, it lists three "crimes and sins committed by the Americans":
* U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
* U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
* U.S. support of Israel.
"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
And what was the motives of the two suicide pilots that crashed the two planes into the World Trade Center?
A German friend of Mohammed Atta (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC 1 ) is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
Marwan al-Shehhi (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC 2 ) answered, "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?" when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed.
And the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, was angry withtheUnited States "not from his experience there as a student, but rather his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel"
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that isconsistent withthe motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent tothe New YorkTimes after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare ourresponsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building.This actionwas done in response for the American political,economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism andto the rest of thedictator countries in the region."
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darlingand Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia in 1993. Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel."
And look how the real motives get suppressed:
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel.
Lee Hamilton insults the American people at a "9/11 Public DiscourseProject"Q&A. At the August 2, 2005 "public event," Hamilton quickly trys to silence someone who asks why US support for Israelisn't being addressedsince it is what drove the plotter of 9/11 to attack us.
>
> I disagree with your claim that the controlled demolition theory was
> debunked merely by statements from police officers that they observed
> the building buckle ... --- In DowningStreetMemo@yahoogroups.com, "Chris"
The evidence is not limited to the eyewitness accounts, I wish you had read the article ( http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html ) because I included four photos that document what the witnesses were talking about.
If you were going to suggest that police in helicopters were told to lie (I don't know how in the world you could even begin to rationalize that)but we don't have to rely on them only, we have corroborating photographic evidence of the progressive failure ofthe buildings in the MINUTES (not seconds) before the buildings fell. THAT DOES NOTHAPPEN WITH A CONTROLLED EXPLOSION, in a controlled demolition a building does not show signs it is going to collapse in the MINUTES before it does. In fact, Griffin claims the lack of signs is one of the "proofs" of a "controlled explosion" with the WTC:
"SuddenOnset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse issudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, itsuddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings wereperfectly motionless upto the moment they began their collapse." -David Ray Griffin
Griffin says "there were no signs of bending or sagging." He is clearly extremely ignorant of the evidence or he is a liar.
The bucking of the exterior steel columns, in the minutes well before the buildings collapsed, disproves the idea that explosives brought the buildings down for the simple fact that explosives don't explode in slow motion over several minutes. The bucking of the exterior steel columns was witnessed and photographed inthe minutes - in some cases many minutes - before thebuildings camedown. see photos here: WTC photos show buckling steel columns in the minutes before the collapse of the buildings.
The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse
Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001
For example: At 9:37, a civilian on the 106th floor of the South Tower reported to a911 operator that a lower floor-the "90-something floor"-wascollapsing. - "The 9/11 Commission Report" p304Many of the people pushing CD omit key facts and quotes. For example when CTists quote Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory they leave this part out:
"Idon't know if that means anything. I mean, Iequate it to the buildingcowing down and pushing things down, it couldhave been electricalexplosions, it could have been whatever." http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
Guess why they left that important part out.
The Quotes - Evidence conspiracy theorist are lying and taking fireman's quotes out of context.
Your arguments don't make sence given the evidence and many of the arguments are simply wrong, see 911 myths, Debunking 911 and 9/11 Facts not Fantasy.AsI pointed out, the exterior columns could be seen bending, in the caseof the tower that collapsed first the bowing was observed as early as18 min after the plane hit. The steel was observably bucking very early, it is why WTC 2 collapsed first. Beyond all reasonable and sane doubt, it was not explosives but rather what we can see in the photos, the progresive failure of the structure due to fire damaging the unprotected trusses adn causing the exterior columns to buckle (which we can see in the photos and which people reported they saw that day).
I must admit I find the "controlled demolition" and "inside job" theoryirritating since I see people wasting time on this nonsence and ignoring the brutal realities of the motives for the 9/11 attacks:
These are the real reasons and they has been stated for years:
The motivation for the attacks was set out in a 1998 fatwa, it lists three "crimes and sins committed by the Americans":
* U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
* U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
* U.S. support of Israel.
"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
And what was the motives of the two suicide pilots that crashed the two planes into the World Trade Center?
A German friend of Mohammed Atta (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC 1 ) is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."
Marwan al-Shehhi (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC 2 ) answered, "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?" when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed.
And the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, was angry withtheUnited States "not from his experience there as a student, but rather his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel"
These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that isconsistent withthe motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent tothe New YorkTimes after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare ourresponsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building.This actionwas done in response for the American political,economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism andto the rest of thedictator countries in the region."
It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darlingand Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia in 1993. Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel."
And look how the real motives get suppressed:
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel.
Lee Hamilton insults the American people at a "9/11 Public DiscourseProject"Q&A. At the August 2, 2005 "public event," Hamilton quickly trys to silence someone who asks why US support for Israelisn't being addressedsince it is what drove the plotter of 9/11 to attack us.
Now We Have Eleven Internal Memos
Eleven memos that show Bush was dishonest with us about his intentions for war with Iraq. Jonathan Schwarz points out that excuse given by politicians when the Downing Street Memo memos and the latest memo reach the public is that they are "taken out of context." But as Schwarz points out, eleven memos shows a clear pattern. To any reasonable person, these memos reveal the context. The context is that Bush was intent on war the whole time despite what he was telling us. The 11 memos show the President has been lying to us the whole time.
Eleven memos that show Bush was dishonest with us about his intentions for war with Iraq. Jonathan Schwarz points out that excuse given by politicians when the Downing Street Memo memos and the latest memo reach the public is that they are "taken out of context." But as Schwarz points out, eleven memos shows a clear pattern. To any reasonable person, these memos reveal the context. The context is that Bush was intent on war the whole time despite what he was telling us. The 11 memos show the President has been lying to us the whole time.
How many times are these protest organizing groups going to hold protests that the media doesn't cover? All the effort to get people to do a particular march and for what?
If the upcoming march ( I just looked up and found out it already happened on March 18)
So that answers my question, what is going to be different after the march? Nothing. And they should have know this since the media really doesn't cover the protest marches. See: Disappearing another Protests, Media shrug off mass movement against war
If the upcoming march ( I just looked up and found out it already happened on March 18)
So that answers my question, what is going to be different after the march? Nothing. And they should have know this since the media really doesn't cover the protest marches. See: Disappearing another Protests, Media shrug off mass movement against war
Friday, March 24, 2006
EVAN COLEMAN, MSNBC TERRORIST ANALYST does a good job explaining the facts: There was not a pre-9/11 operational relationship between Osama bin Laden and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
COLEMAN: Well, I think much like a lot of the other evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, you scratch at the surface a little bit, and it completely falls apart.
I think first of all, you have to look at the source of these documents, that they come from the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Department of Defense has attached a big disclaimer to them, saying that “We do not make any representations as to the authentication, as to the accuracy of these documents. We have to way of knowing they’re authentic or not.” So that’s kind of a big caveat we have to move beyond to begin with.
No. 2, they’re talking about a meeting that took place in 1995 in the Sudan. At the time the Sudan was the Casablanca of terrorism. Every terrorist group you can imagine, with every state sponsor you can imagine, Iran included, were harboring there, working together, were training each other.
That all pretty much stopped in 1996, when the Sudan decided it no longer wanted to be involved with terrorism. Al Qaeda went its way; Iran went its way; and Saddam Hussein went his way. Since then, there has been no credible indication there has been any cooperation as a result of this meeting.
And if you look at the substance of the meeting, you’ll maybe understand why. The talks were about distributing radio broadcasts from an al Qaeda preacher by the name of Suleiman al-Ouda.
Now, Suleiman al-Ouda is someone who’s very well well-known. The reason is because in 1995 you could have purchased dozens of his audiotapes anywhere in the world: in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in any country in Europe, in Saudi Arabia, anywhere.
So the fact that Saddam Hussein was going to allow these radio broadcasts in didn’t put him on any different standing than any place else in the world.
What’s more, in 1995, at the same time that this alleged meeting might have been happening, the neighboring state of Qatar in the Persian Gulf was providing direct assistance to the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It spirited him away. It helped him escape from the CIA.
At the same time, millions of dollars were coming from Saudi Arabia to sponsor charities that were funneling money to al Qaeda.
CARLSON: So...
COLEMAN: And we have evidence of one possible meeting here. This is really...
CARLSON: But yet what’s interesting about it—and I don’t disagree with a word you said—however, we knew that the Saudis and I assume Qatar, as well, were sympathetic or had large elements in them that were sympathetic to Islamic extremism.
All along, however, we have heard of Saddam Hussein, he hated the Islamic radicals. He saw them as a threat to his own power. He killed a lot of them in Iraq. Is it interesting to you that he had any dialogue at all with an Islamic radical like Osama bin Laden?
COLEMAN: Well, I think we have to, again, we have to put a caveat here. This was an attempted dialogue. And I think what these documents make clear is that no connection was established, that this would-be relationship withered.
And in fact, what’s interesting, as well, is that al Qaeda, in the last couple of weeks, has been releasing their own set of internal documents, documenting the early days of al Qaeda in Iraq, the people that laid the foundation for al Qaeda in Iraq.
And the one thing that comes up over and over again in those documents is that al Qaeda in Iraq had absolutely no connection to the regime of Saddam Hussein.
CARLSON: Well...
COLEMAN: In fact, the leading figures in that organization swear that back before the U.S. ever invaded Iraq, they were waging an open war against Saddam Hussein.
One of these individuals profiled by al Qaeda, his famous quote was his uncle came to him, who was an official in Iraqi intelligence, and said to him, you know, “If you go back, if you agree to support Saddam Hussein, all will be forgiven. I can make all well.”
And he turned to his uncle and he said, “You should be the one apologizing. You should be apologizing to God for working for an apostate like Saddam Hussein.”
CARLSON: Right.
COLEMAN: These folks were not in league with each other.
CARLSON: On the other—on the other hand, I mean, to play devil’s advocate here, though, al Qaeda would—has motive, of course, to say—to release these documents, because al Qaeda is waging a pretty sophisticated propaganda war against the United States, as well as the military and against the war in Iraq.
COLEMAN: This goes back way—I mean, this goes back to the early days of the Arab Afghans. One of the individuals that often popped up in these intelligence reports as the link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda was an al Qaeda official, an Iraqi guy, Mamdouh Mahmoud Salim, who’s actually in prison here in New York for his role in the ‘98 East Africa embassy bombings.
What’s the problem with that? Well, despite the fact that he may be al Qaeda and he’s Iraqi, what this ignores is the fact that the many years he worked opposing the regime of Saddam Hussein.
He actually—his comment was that the fact that we come from regimes that are tyrannical makes us turn into tyrants the moment anyone gives us any shred of power.
CARLSON: Right.
COLEMAN: These people were absolutely opposed to the reign of Saddam Hussein, before the U.S. invaded, while we invaded and afterwards. They regarded Saddam as a tyrant. In fact, they blamed us for the fact that Saddam Hussein was in power. They felt that Saddam Hussein was able to invade Kuwait, was able to stay in power because of the United States.
CARLSON: Well, they got half of it right, he was a tyrant. [No Carlson, U.S. officials are indeed responsible because they supported Saddam starting in the late 1950's, paying him to be a killer. They alos backed the two coups that put the Ba'ath party into power in the first place. see the CIA and Saddam]
Evan Coleman, from New York, thanks a lot.
COLEMAN: Thank you.
From transcript of 'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for March 23, 2006
COLEMAN: Well, I think much like a lot of the other evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, you scratch at the surface a little bit, and it completely falls apart.
I think first of all, you have to look at the source of these documents, that they come from the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Department of Defense has attached a big disclaimer to them, saying that “We do not make any representations as to the authentication, as to the accuracy of these documents. We have to way of knowing they’re authentic or not.” So that’s kind of a big caveat we have to move beyond to begin with.
No. 2, they’re talking about a meeting that took place in 1995 in the Sudan. At the time the Sudan was the Casablanca of terrorism. Every terrorist group you can imagine, with every state sponsor you can imagine, Iran included, were harboring there, working together, were training each other.
That all pretty much stopped in 1996, when the Sudan decided it no longer wanted to be involved with terrorism. Al Qaeda went its way; Iran went its way; and Saddam Hussein went his way. Since then, there has been no credible indication there has been any cooperation as a result of this meeting.
And if you look at the substance of the meeting, you’ll maybe understand why. The talks were about distributing radio broadcasts from an al Qaeda preacher by the name of Suleiman al-Ouda.
Now, Suleiman al-Ouda is someone who’s very well well-known. The reason is because in 1995 you could have purchased dozens of his audiotapes anywhere in the world: in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in any country in Europe, in Saudi Arabia, anywhere.
So the fact that Saddam Hussein was going to allow these radio broadcasts in didn’t put him on any different standing than any place else in the world.
What’s more, in 1995, at the same time that this alleged meeting might have been happening, the neighboring state of Qatar in the Persian Gulf was providing direct assistance to the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It spirited him away. It helped him escape from the CIA.
At the same time, millions of dollars were coming from Saudi Arabia to sponsor charities that were funneling money to al Qaeda.
CARLSON: So...
COLEMAN: And we have evidence of one possible meeting here. This is really...
CARLSON: But yet what’s interesting about it—and I don’t disagree with a word you said—however, we knew that the Saudis and I assume Qatar, as well, were sympathetic or had large elements in them that were sympathetic to Islamic extremism.
All along, however, we have heard of Saddam Hussein, he hated the Islamic radicals. He saw them as a threat to his own power. He killed a lot of them in Iraq. Is it interesting to you that he had any dialogue at all with an Islamic radical like Osama bin Laden?
COLEMAN: Well, I think we have to, again, we have to put a caveat here. This was an attempted dialogue. And I think what these documents make clear is that no connection was established, that this would-be relationship withered.
And in fact, what’s interesting, as well, is that al Qaeda, in the last couple of weeks, has been releasing their own set of internal documents, documenting the early days of al Qaeda in Iraq, the people that laid the foundation for al Qaeda in Iraq.
And the one thing that comes up over and over again in those documents is that al Qaeda in Iraq had absolutely no connection to the regime of Saddam Hussein.
CARLSON: Well...
COLEMAN: In fact, the leading figures in that organization swear that back before the U.S. ever invaded Iraq, they were waging an open war against Saddam Hussein.
One of these individuals profiled by al Qaeda, his famous quote was his uncle came to him, who was an official in Iraqi intelligence, and said to him, you know, “If you go back, if you agree to support Saddam Hussein, all will be forgiven. I can make all well.”
And he turned to his uncle and he said, “You should be the one apologizing. You should be apologizing to God for working for an apostate like Saddam Hussein.”
CARLSON: Right.
COLEMAN: These folks were not in league with each other.
CARLSON: On the other—on the other hand, I mean, to play devil’s advocate here, though, al Qaeda would—has motive, of course, to say—to release these documents, because al Qaeda is waging a pretty sophisticated propaganda war against the United States, as well as the military and against the war in Iraq.
COLEMAN: This goes back way—I mean, this goes back to the early days of the Arab Afghans. One of the individuals that often popped up in these intelligence reports as the link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda was an al Qaeda official, an Iraqi guy, Mamdouh Mahmoud Salim, who’s actually in prison here in New York for his role in the ‘98 East Africa embassy bombings.
What’s the problem with that? Well, despite the fact that he may be al Qaeda and he’s Iraqi, what this ignores is the fact that the many years he worked opposing the regime of Saddam Hussein.
He actually—his comment was that the fact that we come from regimes that are tyrannical makes us turn into tyrants the moment anyone gives us any shred of power.
CARLSON: Right.
COLEMAN: These people were absolutely opposed to the reign of Saddam Hussein, before the U.S. invaded, while we invaded and afterwards. They regarded Saddam as a tyrant. In fact, they blamed us for the fact that Saddam Hussein was in power. They felt that Saddam Hussein was able to invade Kuwait, was able to stay in power because of the United States.
CARLSON: Well, they got half of it right, he was a tyrant. [No Carlson, U.S. officials are indeed responsible because they supported Saddam starting in the late 1950's, paying him to be a killer. They alos backed the two coups that put the Ba'ath party into power in the first place. see the CIA and Saddam]
Evan Coleman, from New York, thanks a lot.
COLEMAN: Thank you.
From transcript of 'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for March 23, 2006
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Scott Ritter Was Right
DONAHUE SHOW January 13, 2003
ANNOUNCER: Tonight: As the president continues to beat the war drum, tens of thousands of Americans are sent to the Persian Gulf. Is January 27 a deadline for war or a speed bump to a diplomatic solution?
DONAHUE goes inside the issues with two men on polar opposite sides:
former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who claims Iraq is not a threat; and his former boss, Ambassador Richard Butler, who says Iraq poses the greatest threat to global security.
Debating now, for the first time face to face, are two men once charged with the task of ridding Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That was then. And now, they are bitterly disagreeing on how much of a threat Saddam is to the world. Here are Ambassador Richard Butler, MSNBC analyst and former executive chairman of the United Nations special commission charged with the disarmament of Iraq; and Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector, under Butler. Scott Ritter is here and so is Ambassador Butler.
(APPLAUSE)
DONAHUE: Well, Scott, you wrote a book titled "Endgame." You once reported to Richard Butler. He was your boss. And now you disagree with him. Kindly make your case, Mr. Ritter, sir.
SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Well, I think the basic issue of disagreement is what exactly constitutes the threat that Iraq poses today.
I think, clearly, Richard and I understand that Iraq is obligated to disarm, that they possessed massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction and they have an obligation...
RICHARD BUTLER, FORMER CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: That's right.
So, you say massive quantities.
RITTER: They had massive quantities.
DONAHUE: You said had. Past tense?
RITTER: Absolutely.
BUTLER: I thought you said has. They had. Which one?
RITTER: Had. Possessed. Past tense.
And they were obligated, under international law, to be disarmed by weapons inspectors. I served seven years as a weapons inspector, from 1991 to 1998. And Ambassador Butler was my boss from the summer of 1997 until my resignation in August 1998. And, during that period of time, we did our job. We weren't able to complete our job.
We make it clear. To disarm, to do what you're obligated to do under international law, a couple things have to have happen. One, Iraq must fully cooperate with the inspectors. And I think we can be in agreement that, during our time in UNSCOM, Iraq never completely cooperated.
BUTLER: Phil, we're going to have a very dull debate, because, so far, I agree with everything he said.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
RITTER: Two, the Security Council must enforce its law. If you're going to pass a law, you have got to enforce it. And, clearly, when Iraq is obligated to disarm and they don't cooperate with the inspectors, the Security Council needs to do something. If they don't, you don't have viable inspections. And, three, the integrity of the inspection process must be respected throughout. That means that, not only do we hold Iraq accountable to the rule of law, but we ourselves, in implementing the rule of law, must likewise.
And this is where I have a problem. You see, the United States government has a policy of regime removal, getting rid of Saddam Hussein. And, since 1991, my experience has been that that policy of regime removal, which has taken priority over disarmament, corrupted the integrity of the process.
And I think we have to identify that this corrupting influence does have an influence on what takes place and how we interpret what goes on vis-a-vis Iraq. Let there be no doubt. During the seven years that I was a weapons inspector, the United States took advantage of the unique access we enjoyed as inspectors in Iraq to seek information about the security of Saddam Hussein and attempt to eliminate Saddam Hussein. And this corrupted the integrity of the work of the weapons inspectors.
And, ultimately, this is why there are no weapons inspectors in Iraq today. Now, we have inspectors in Iraq today...
BUTLER: But there are weapons inspectors in Iraq.
RITTER: No, no. We don't have UNSCOM there today. Now, we have inspectors back, UNMOVIC. And they're doing their job. Iraq is not interfering, to date. And the Security Council said they will enforce the law.
But let there be no doubt. The United States has a policy of regime removal and the United States still intends on getting rid of Saddam Hussein, regardless of what international law says. And they will and are corrupting the integrity of the inspection process at this point in time. And that's my bone of contention.
Unfortunately, Richard, it was during your tenure as executive chairman, when you were captain of the UNSCOM ship, that we ran aground, that the United States did its worst in regards to abusing the inspection system. So, with all due respect, I hold you a little bit accountable for what occurred.
(APPLAUSE)
...
RITTER: What I'll say is this, is, I take strong disagreement with the contention that you know that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
BUTLER: Oh, come on, Scott. That's on the public record.
RITTER: Of course it's not. The public record actually says, with all due respect...
BUTLER: You signed the papers to me, when you worked for me, advising me-with all of your intellect and knowledge, you signed pieces of paper to me saying that Iraq has hidden weapons of mass destruction.
RITTER: Never.
I signed pieces of paper to you that said we have credible intelligence information that says Iraq has it. And I asked you permission to carry out an inspection. But, understand, it's an investigation. You just made a definitive statement that says you know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. But, with all due respect, Richard, that is never reflected in any of the documents, even the one you just mentioned.
BUTLER: That's not true.
RITTER: It is true. I have it here tonight. Do you want to go through the document page by page and show the people?
DONAHUE: Well, probably not.
(LAUGHTER)
BUTLER: It's absolutely established that Iraq has not accounted for...
RITTER: Bingo. I agree with that, has not accounted for. But that's an accounting issue.
BUTLER: So, where are the 500 shells with mustard in them? Where is
the 400 tons of
(CROSSTALK)
RITTER: These are good questions, but do you have evidence that they have it?
BUTLER: Where are the missiles?
RITTER: Do you know they have it for a fact, that they possess it as we speak? Or is the problem that Iraq has provided an accounting that we don't have evidence to back it up, that we can't confirm the Iraqi version of disposition? My point is...
BUTLER: Why are you assuming such a degree of innocence on the part of the Iraqis?
RITTER: Because 200,000 Americans are going to war based upon a perception of a threat. You testified before the U.S. Senate that Iraq has these weapons. And people listened to you and they gave that credibility, when the fact is, you do not know with absolute certainty that Iraq has these weapons.
BUTLER: Scott, the United States...
(APPLAUSE)
RITTER: And I'm not going to stand by and let Americans die in combat because people like you mislead the American Congress. I just won't allow that to happen.
BUTLER: Oh, for God's sake, for God's sake, I mislead the American Congress?
RITTER: You said you know where the weapons are. Where are they?
...
RITTER: Well, again, what I would like to say is this. We're talking about going to war here. And this is a very serious issue, one that I think we both are in agreement with. This is not a game, no matter what the media does.
DONAHUE: No, no, no, we know that, Scott. We know that.
RITTER: It's not a game. It's real.
So, there has to be real justification. And the justification has to be a threat posed to international security or to the security of the United States by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I share your concern over the Iraqi declaration. I find them insufficient in terms of closing all the gaps.
However, the Iraqis have provided an accounting. And until which time we can demonstrate that this accounting is false, that they actually possess weapons, I'm in favor of pursuing weapons inspections until hell freezes over before we send any Americans across the line of departure into harm's way. And my big concern is that the United States government-and, unfortunately, I've heard you say things that echo this-have stated, without any doubt, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has chemical weapons. Iraq has biological weapons.
And the America public accepts this without debate. There must be a debate. There must be a dialogue, because, ladies and gentlemen, the United States government has lied about Iraq in the past. [see another example: Our government has lied to us before about Iraq! ] of the The United States government has a policy of regime removal, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, that has been in place since 1991 and has corrupted the moral character of the international community's effort to disarm Iraq.
Understand that, in December 1998, it wasn't Iraq that kicked the inspectors out. It was a phone call from Peter Burleigh to you that got the inspectors out, so the United States could initiate a bombing campaign, Desert Fox, which used U.N. intelligence to target Saddam Hussein. That destroyed the credibility of the inspection
...
DONAHUE: Yes. Kimberly from Maryland, are you there?
CALLER: Yes, I'm here.
DONAHUE: You wanted to say?
CALLER: I just want to say I totally support the war. I mean, I just wanted to ask each of the people who are speaking, you know, how much longer is this going to go on? We started this epidemic 10, what, years ago...
DONAHUE: Yes.
CALLER: ... and now we're still going on with it. Is it going to be my children that have to deal with it?
DONAHUE: I have an e-mail from Lloyd, who supports your point, Kimberly. "What is the debate about? Saddam Hussein is a mad dictator who used weapons of mass destruction against women and children, killing hundreds if not thousands of them and permanently altering their genetics in the process. He should have been killed years ago."
Somebody wanted the-Scott?
RITTER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) right here. Hey, Kimberly, go to war, then. But I'm not going to support you. I won't stop from you going off and dying, but I'll tell you what. I took an oath when I went to war to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
And what I will remind everybody, including the gentlemen around this table-Article 6 of the United States Constitution clearly states that when the United States enters an internationality agreement or treaty that is ratified by two thirds of the United States Senate, it is the law of the land here. We are signatories to the United Nations charter. The United Nations charter prohibits unilateral military action. It prohibits regime change.
Frankly speaking, President Bush is launching a frontal assault not only against the innocent people of Iraq, not only against the dictator Saddam, but against the Constitution that define us as a nation!
(APPLAUSE)
...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Gentlemen, my question is, 12 years-I know of at least seven resolutions that Saddam has just flat-out denied from the U.N.
DONAHUE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When is enough enough? Has September 11 not taught us that we need to be proactive...
DONAHUE: You want to go now, don't you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... in defending our-I'm just saying that if that is what the intelligence points to, then we need to support our president and get behind him and support him going to war because those men and women we are sending over there need our support. And we have got to be proactive in defending this country!
DONAHUE: Well...
RITTER: As somebody who was there in 1991, I'll tell you this. I will go to war to take care of any threat against this country. But you just made a remarkable link between September 11 and what's going on in Iraq right now. What link? You show me how what happened that horrible day here on September 11 - how that had anything to do with the situation in Iraq right now. There is no link. There is no reason for us to go to war against Iraq until you demonstrate that Saddam Hussein represents a threat to the United States of America. And 12 years of violating international law does not constitute justification for the death of a single American.
You know, we can contain Saddam. I'm a firefighter in Delmar (ph), New York. And when we have a building on fire, if there's people inside, we run inside. We put our lives at risk to get them out. But you know, if there ain't no one inside, we just surround and drown. Right now, Saddam doesn't pose a threat worthy of the sacrifice of life. Surround and drown. I'd rather be inconvenienced than attending the funerals of ...
DONAHUE SHOW January 13, 2003
ANNOUNCER: Tonight: As the president continues to beat the war drum, tens of thousands of Americans are sent to the Persian Gulf. Is January 27 a deadline for war or a speed bump to a diplomatic solution?
DONAHUE goes inside the issues with two men on polar opposite sides:
former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who claims Iraq is not a threat; and his former boss, Ambassador Richard Butler, who says Iraq poses the greatest threat to global security.
Debating now, for the first time face to face, are two men once charged with the task of ridding Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That was then. And now, they are bitterly disagreeing on how much of a threat Saddam is to the world. Here are Ambassador Richard Butler, MSNBC analyst and former executive chairman of the United Nations special commission charged with the disarmament of Iraq; and Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector, under Butler. Scott Ritter is here and so is Ambassador Butler.
(APPLAUSE)
DONAHUE: Well, Scott, you wrote a book titled "Endgame." You once reported to Richard Butler. He was your boss. And now you disagree with him. Kindly make your case, Mr. Ritter, sir.
SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Well, I think the basic issue of disagreement is what exactly constitutes the threat that Iraq poses today.
I think, clearly, Richard and I understand that Iraq is obligated to disarm, that they possessed massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction and they have an obligation...
RICHARD BUTLER, FORMER CHIEF U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: That's right.
So, you say massive quantities.
RITTER: They had massive quantities.
DONAHUE: You said had. Past tense?
RITTER: Absolutely.
BUTLER: I thought you said has. They had. Which one?
RITTER: Had. Possessed. Past tense.
And they were obligated, under international law, to be disarmed by weapons inspectors. I served seven years as a weapons inspector, from 1991 to 1998. And Ambassador Butler was my boss from the summer of 1997 until my resignation in August 1998. And, during that period of time, we did our job. We weren't able to complete our job.
We make it clear. To disarm, to do what you're obligated to do under international law, a couple things have to have happen. One, Iraq must fully cooperate with the inspectors. And I think we can be in agreement that, during our time in UNSCOM, Iraq never completely cooperated.
BUTLER: Phil, we're going to have a very dull debate, because, so far, I agree with everything he said.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
RITTER: Two, the Security Council must enforce its law. If you're going to pass a law, you have got to enforce it. And, clearly, when Iraq is obligated to disarm and they don't cooperate with the inspectors, the Security Council needs to do something. If they don't, you don't have viable inspections. And, three, the integrity of the inspection process must be respected throughout. That means that, not only do we hold Iraq accountable to the rule of law, but we ourselves, in implementing the rule of law, must likewise.
And this is where I have a problem. You see, the United States government has a policy of regime removal, getting rid of Saddam Hussein. And, since 1991, my experience has been that that policy of regime removal, which has taken priority over disarmament, corrupted the integrity of the process.
And I think we have to identify that this corrupting influence does have an influence on what takes place and how we interpret what goes on vis-a-vis Iraq. Let there be no doubt. During the seven years that I was a weapons inspector, the United States took advantage of the unique access we enjoyed as inspectors in Iraq to seek information about the security of Saddam Hussein and attempt to eliminate Saddam Hussein. And this corrupted the integrity of the work of the weapons inspectors.
And, ultimately, this is why there are no weapons inspectors in Iraq today. Now, we have inspectors in Iraq today...
BUTLER: But there are weapons inspectors in Iraq.
RITTER: No, no. We don't have UNSCOM there today. Now, we have inspectors back, UNMOVIC. And they're doing their job. Iraq is not interfering, to date. And the Security Council said they will enforce the law.
But let there be no doubt. The United States has a policy of regime removal and the United States still intends on getting rid of Saddam Hussein, regardless of what international law says. And they will and are corrupting the integrity of the inspection process at this point in time. And that's my bone of contention.
Unfortunately, Richard, it was during your tenure as executive chairman, when you were captain of the UNSCOM ship, that we ran aground, that the United States did its worst in regards to abusing the inspection system. So, with all due respect, I hold you a little bit accountable for what occurred.
(APPLAUSE)
...
RITTER: What I'll say is this, is, I take strong disagreement with the contention that you know that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
BUTLER: Oh, come on, Scott. That's on the public record.
RITTER: Of course it's not. The public record actually says, with all due respect...
BUTLER: You signed the papers to me, when you worked for me, advising me-with all of your intellect and knowledge, you signed pieces of paper to me saying that Iraq has hidden weapons of mass destruction.
RITTER: Never.
I signed pieces of paper to you that said we have credible intelligence information that says Iraq has it. And I asked you permission to carry out an inspection. But, understand, it's an investigation. You just made a definitive statement that says you know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. But, with all due respect, Richard, that is never reflected in any of the documents, even the one you just mentioned.
BUTLER: That's not true.
RITTER: It is true. I have it here tonight. Do you want to go through the document page by page and show the people?
DONAHUE: Well, probably not.
(LAUGHTER)
BUTLER: It's absolutely established that Iraq has not accounted for...
RITTER: Bingo. I agree with that, has not accounted for. But that's an accounting issue.
BUTLER: So, where are the 500 shells with mustard in them? Where is
the 400 tons of
(CROSSTALK)
RITTER: These are good questions, but do you have evidence that they have it?
BUTLER: Where are the missiles?
RITTER: Do you know they have it for a fact, that they possess it as we speak? Or is the problem that Iraq has provided an accounting that we don't have evidence to back it up, that we can't confirm the Iraqi version of disposition? My point is...
BUTLER: Why are you assuming such a degree of innocence on the part of the Iraqis?
RITTER: Because 200,000 Americans are going to war based upon a perception of a threat. You testified before the U.S. Senate that Iraq has these weapons. And people listened to you and they gave that credibility, when the fact is, you do not know with absolute certainty that Iraq has these weapons.
BUTLER: Scott, the United States...
(APPLAUSE)
RITTER: And I'm not going to stand by and let Americans die in combat because people like you mislead the American Congress. I just won't allow that to happen.
BUTLER: Oh, for God's sake, for God's sake, I mislead the American Congress?
RITTER: You said you know where the weapons are. Where are they?
...
RITTER: Well, again, what I would like to say is this. We're talking about going to war here. And this is a very serious issue, one that I think we both are in agreement with. This is not a game, no matter what the media does.
DONAHUE: No, no, no, we know that, Scott. We know that.
RITTER: It's not a game. It's real.
So, there has to be real justification. And the justification has to be a threat posed to international security or to the security of the United States by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I share your concern over the Iraqi declaration. I find them insufficient in terms of closing all the gaps.
However, the Iraqis have provided an accounting. And until which time we can demonstrate that this accounting is false, that they actually possess weapons, I'm in favor of pursuing weapons inspections until hell freezes over before we send any Americans across the line of departure into harm's way. And my big concern is that the United States government-and, unfortunately, I've heard you say things that echo this-have stated, without any doubt, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has chemical weapons. Iraq has biological weapons.
And the America public accepts this without debate. There must be a debate. There must be a dialogue, because, ladies and gentlemen, the United States government has lied about Iraq in the past. [see another example: Our government has lied to us before about Iraq! ] of the The United States government has a policy of regime removal, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, that has been in place since 1991 and has corrupted the moral character of the international community's effort to disarm Iraq.
Understand that, in December 1998, it wasn't Iraq that kicked the inspectors out. It was a phone call from Peter Burleigh to you that got the inspectors out, so the United States could initiate a bombing campaign, Desert Fox, which used U.N. intelligence to target Saddam Hussein. That destroyed the credibility of the inspection
...
DONAHUE: Yes. Kimberly from Maryland, are you there?
CALLER: Yes, I'm here.
DONAHUE: You wanted to say?
CALLER: I just want to say I totally support the war. I mean, I just wanted to ask each of the people who are speaking, you know, how much longer is this going to go on? We started this epidemic 10, what, years ago...
DONAHUE: Yes.
CALLER: ... and now we're still going on with it. Is it going to be my children that have to deal with it?
DONAHUE: I have an e-mail from Lloyd, who supports your point, Kimberly. "What is the debate about? Saddam Hussein is a mad dictator who used weapons of mass destruction against women and children, killing hundreds if not thousands of them and permanently altering their genetics in the process. He should have been killed years ago."
Somebody wanted the-Scott?
RITTER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) right here. Hey, Kimberly, go to war, then. But I'm not going to support you. I won't stop from you going off and dying, but I'll tell you what. I took an oath when I went to war to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic.
And what I will remind everybody, including the gentlemen around this table-Article 6 of the United States Constitution clearly states that when the United States enters an internationality agreement or treaty that is ratified by two thirds of the United States Senate, it is the law of the land here. We are signatories to the United Nations charter. The United Nations charter prohibits unilateral military action. It prohibits regime change.
Frankly speaking, President Bush is launching a frontal assault not only against the innocent people of Iraq, not only against the dictator Saddam, but against the Constitution that define us as a nation!
(APPLAUSE)
...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Gentlemen, my question is, 12 years-I know of at least seven resolutions that Saddam has just flat-out denied from the U.N.
DONAHUE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When is enough enough? Has September 11 not taught us that we need to be proactive...
DONAHUE: You want to go now, don't you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... in defending our-I'm just saying that if that is what the intelligence points to, then we need to support our president and get behind him and support him going to war because those men and women we are sending over there need our support. And we have got to be proactive in defending this country!
DONAHUE: Well...
RITTER: As somebody who was there in 1991, I'll tell you this. I will go to war to take care of any threat against this country. But you just made a remarkable link between September 11 and what's going on in Iraq right now. What link? You show me how what happened that horrible day here on September 11 - how that had anything to do with the situation in Iraq right now. There is no link. There is no reason for us to go to war against Iraq until you demonstrate that Saddam Hussein represents a threat to the United States of America. And 12 years of violating international law does not constitute justification for the death of a single American.
You know, we can contain Saddam. I'm a firefighter in Delmar (ph), New York. And when we have a building on fire, if there's people inside, we run inside. We put our lives at risk to get them out. But you know, if there ain't no one inside, we just surround and drown. Right now, Saddam doesn't pose a threat worthy of the sacrifice of life. Surround and drown. I'd rather be inconvenienced than attending the funerals of ...
Friday, March 10, 2006
UPDATE WITH PHOTOS: WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory
"There would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would just suddenly happen without any indication. But the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications. Instead, exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers." - Representative Press
"There would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would just suddenly happen without any indication. But the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications. Instead, exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers." - Representative Press
Controlled Demolition Debunked
Callan's warnings about the north tower, WTC 1, reached the Office of Emergency Management, OEM. Other people learned from OEM that the WTC buildings were going to collapse. EMT Richard Zarrillo was told to deliver the message. In an Oct 25, 2001 interview Zarrillo explianed, "I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out. ... I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down." 9110161.PDF http://nistreview.org/histories.php
At 9:37, a civilian on the 106th floor of the South Tower reported to a 911 operator that a lower floor-the "90-something floor"-was collapsing. - "The 9/11 Commission Report" p304 Controlled Demolition Debunked
The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse
Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001
Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."Callan's warnings about the north tower, WTC 1, reached the Office of Emergency Management, OEM. Other people learned from OEM that the WTC buildings were going to collapse. EMT Richard Zarrillo was told to deliver the message. In an Oct 25, 2001 interview Zarrillo explianed, "I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out. ... I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down." 9110161.PDF http://nistreview.org/histories.php
At 9:37, a civilian on the 106th floor of the South Tower reported to a 911 operator that a lower floor-the "90-something floor"-was collapsing. - "The 9/11 Commission Report" p304 Controlled Demolition Debunked
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Don't Ignore What Our Soldiers Swore to Support and Defend
--- In 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com, John Perna wrote:
"DO YOU WISH THAT YOU COULD TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?
My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete. This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning."
WHOA, WHOA John. This is supposed to be what we would wish for? I wish for justice. I wish Bush and others get charged with war crimes for starting a war of aggression against Iraq.
In your wish list scenario you let Bush and the other criminals off the hook!! What Bush did was a war crime, in fact a crime the same as the Nazis were hung for. The crime of aggression.
"The major and crucial point overlooked is the judgment of Nuremberg, declaring that aggression is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." All of the "accumulated evil." Also overlooked are the stern words of the US Chief Counsel Justice Jackson: "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us... We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Until at least this is recognized, all other discussion is merely footnotes, and shameful ones." - Q/A on the Iraq War
"By the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which the US initiated and carried out, it concluded that the supreme international crime is invasion, aggression, and that supreme crime includes within it all the evil that follows. So therefore the doubling of malnutrition rates, the maybe 100,000 casualties, the grave war crimes in Fallujah, they're all footnotes, they're footnotes to the supreme international crime.
And that crime is taken pretty seriously. [when others do it of course] In Nuremberg they did not try soldiers, and they didn't try company commanders, they tried the the people who were on trial and hanged - were the top command. Like the German Foreign Minister was hanged. Because of participation in the supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows. Do we hear anything about that?" - Civilization versus Barbarism?
The war was illegal and that is according to our own Constitution because the war violated the "law of the land." The U.S. signed the UN Charter which means that the treaty is law of our land. For those that actually care about this country: the very foundation of which is the U.S. Constitution. It is the core of what our country is supposed to be about and it is so important that it is what our solders swear to “support and defend. ” The oath we have them take is "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States "
And Congress doesn't care about saving the taxpayers money, they want to spend the money because the rich and powerful interests they represent want public money spent because it goes to U.S. corporations. The special interests that pull the strings don't think of it as spending money, because for them it is literally receiving money. That is an important point. Look at these wars and you see it they are actaully a shake down of the American taxpayer. But these politicians don't care since it is not their money being s spent and the interests they represent are on the receiving end of the deal. These special intersts should not profit. Investigantions should be carried out into who pushed for the war and how they lied to the American people.
"The United States should not only get out quickly, it ought to be compelled or shamed into paying huge sums to a free Iraq to compensate for the enormous damage that resulted from its commission of the "supreme crime" and murderous occupation." - Q/A on the Iraq War
--- In 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com, John Perna
"DO YOU WISH THAT YOU COULD TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?
My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete. This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning."
WHOA, WHOA John. This is supposed to be what we would wish for? I wish for justice. I wish Bush and others get charged with war crimes for starting a war of aggression against Iraq.
In your wish list scenario you let Bush and the other criminals off the hook!! What Bush did was a war crime, in fact a crime the same as the Nazis were hung for. The crime of aggression.
"The major and crucial point overlooked is the judgment of Nuremberg, declaring that aggression is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." All of the "accumulated evil." Also overlooked are the stern words of the US Chief Counsel Justice Jackson: "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us... We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Until at least this is recognized, all other discussion is merely footnotes, and shameful ones." - Q/A on the Iraq War
"By the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which the US initiated and carried out, it concluded that the supreme international crime is invasion, aggression, and that supreme crime includes within it all the evil that follows. So therefore the doubling of malnutrition rates, the maybe 100,000 casualties, the grave war crimes in Fallujah, they're all footnotes, they're footnotes to the supreme international crime.
And that crime is taken pretty seriously. [when others do it of course] In Nuremberg they did not try soldiers, and they didn't try company commanders, they tried the the people who were on trial and hanged - were the top command. Like the German Foreign Minister was hanged. Because of participation in the supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows. Do we hear anything about that?" - Civilization versus Barbarism?
The war was illegal and that is according to our own Constitution because the war violated the "law of the land." The U.S. signed the UN Charter which means that the treaty is law of our land. For those that actually care about this country: the very foundation of which is the U.S. Constitution. It is the core of what our country is supposed to be about and it is so important that it is what our solders swear to “support and defend. ” The oath we have them take is "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States "
And Congress doesn't care about saving the taxpayers money, they want to spend the money because the rich and powerful interests they represent want public money spent because it goes to U.S. corporations. The special interests that pull the strings don't think of it as spending money, because for them it is literally receiving money. That is an important point. Look at these wars and you see it they are actaully a shake down of the American taxpayer. But these politicians don't care since it is not their money being s spent and the interests they represent are on the receiving end of the deal. These special intersts should not profit. Investigantions should be carried out into who pushed for the war and how they lied to the American people.
"The United States should not only get out quickly, it ought to be compelled or shamed into paying huge sums to a free Iraq to compensate for the enormous damage that resulted from its commission of the "supreme crime" and murderous occupation." - Q/A on the Iraq War
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Katrina and 9/11
President Bush may be one of the most incompetent presidents in U.S. history. He ignored warnings of two of the most dire threats to the nation and we were hit with two of the biggest catastrophes in history.Many people could not admit it to themselves when they started to hear about the pre-9/11 warnings that Bush ignored. Now we have video evidence of Bush simply being disengaged from his presidential duties when "painstakingly briefed" about an impending disaster. Face it people, the man is a horrible president. Forget all the political party loyalty crap and partisan this or that. Look at the facts. "US disaster officials warned President George Bush in dramatic and sometimes agonising terms that Hurricane Katrina could breach New Orleans levees." But "the president didn't ask a single question during the briefing." -Video shows Bush was warned before Katrina struck
"An explosive videotape indicates President Bush and his homeland security chief were painstakingly briefed before Hurricane Katrina on worst-case scenarios - contradicting Bush's later assertions that no one could have guessed New Orleans' levees would fail.
The video obtained by The Associated Press, along with transcripts of six days of meetings, shows Bush was told of possible levee breaches, impending disaster for evacuees at the New Orleans Superdome and other "grave concerns" about the approaching storm, which experts warned was the "Big One."" - W Knew Kat was 'big one' Vid debunks Prez denial
see video here: In the USA, the aggressively incompetent leaders who get us into one catastrophe after another are allowed to stay and screw up the reconstruction process as well.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Indications of the Imminent Collapse
of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove
the "Controlled Explosions Theory"
Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks "Controlled Demolition"
We have an unacceptable risk to our nation because of specific foreign policies.
People who promote these erroneous 9/11 theories undermine efforts to get the focus on stopping these foreign policies. We must take a serious look at the motives for the 9/11 attacks and call for a full review of the specific foreign policies that motivate terrorists to attack us. I see a lot of people are spreading this "controlled demolition" theory, I also notice they don't talk about ending the foreign policies. Please donate to help Representative Press get the facts out to the people.
False theories like "9/11 was a controlled demolition" or "9/11 was an inside job" or "The WTC collapsed because of explosives" really f*** up efforts to stop the specific foreign policies that put our nation at risk. These false theories undermine serious efforts to get foreign polcies addressed, for example, U.S. support for Israel.
Full article below:
of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove
the "Controlled Explosions Theory"
Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks "Controlled Demolition"
"The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.
"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m. "
What is clear is at least eight minutes before WTC 1 collapsed, the structure of the building was failing. This simply would not be happening if explosives caused the collapse because explosives don't go off in slow motion for eight minutes. Obviously, the way an actual controlled explosion happens is the explosives all go off in a matter of seconds. There simply would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would of course just suddenly happen. But that is not what happened, the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications that they would. Instead, the fires were compromising the structural integrity of the buildings and as the buildings' support structures failed, the exterior started to buckle and this bucking was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers. "The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings," lead investigator Shyam Sunder said at a presentation in midtown. " They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. "Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tilted as it came crashing down."
Other key findings include:
- Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
- The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
We have an unacceptable risk to our nation because of specific foreign policies.
People who promote these erroneous 9/11 theories undermine efforts to get the focus on stopping these foreign policies. We must take a serious look at the motives for the 9/11 attacks and call for a full review of the specific foreign policies that motivate terrorists to attack us. I see a lot of people are spreading this "controlled demolition" theory, I also notice they don't talk about ending the foreign policies. Please donate to help Representative Press get the facts out to the people.
False theories like "9/11 was a controlled demolition" or "9/11 was an inside job" or "The WTC collapsed because of explosives" really f*** up efforts to stop the specific foreign policies that put our nation at risk. These false theories undermine serious efforts to get foreign polcies addressed, for example, U.S. support for Israel.
I suspect more than a few people pushing these false theories are very happy to misdirrect the American public away from questioning specific foreign policies like U.S. support for Israel. (It is the main policy of the foreign policies that motivated the 9/11 terrorists. The plotter of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, actaully went to school here in the U.S. He was angry at the U.S. not because of his experiences here as a student, but rather because of the U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.)
I am working hard to set the record straight and end the risk of terrorism. Please Click on the Representative Press Logo and Donate to help me get the truth out. Those conspiracy websites are clearly well funded and like I have said, they misdirrect the American public away from questioning specific foreign polices like U.S. support for Israel. I need some money to work with to undo the damage these websites are doing and get the facts to the people. 9/11 was not a game, these conspiracy theories undermine efforts to get the government to change the unjust Middle East policies:Full article below: 9/11 cops saw collapse coming
New York Daily News - June 19th, 2004
By PAUL H.B. SHIN
The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.
In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.
But emergency responders inside the tower never got the order to evacuate due to faulty communications equipment and garbled lines of command, investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology said in its second interim report on the collapse's causes.
"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings," lead investigator Shyam Sunder said at a presentation in midtown.
"[If] that information would have been communicated faster to all of the emergency responders in the buildings, it could have helped save lives," he said.
Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tilted as it came crashing down.
The findings that emergency responders could have been warned about the imminent collapse angered some victims' relatives, who were already fuming about the 9/11 Commission's report on Thursday that government foulups contributed to the chaos on that fateful day.
"Eight to 10 minutes could have meant life for so many people," said Sally Regenhard, whose son, Christian, was a probationary firefighter who died in the collapse.
"We had no integrated command structure, so that the Police Department was unable to communicate the fact that the building was going to collapse to the Fire Department," she said. "It's a knife in the heart of the relatives of the victims."
Other key findings include:
- Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
- If the twin towers had been fully occupied - 25,000 people - it would have taken four hours to evacuate the buildings.
- The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
