Acidus wrote:
] ] ``I've ordered this level of cooperation because I
] ] consider it necessary to gaining a complete picture of
] ] the months and years that preceded the murder of our
] ] fellow citizens on Sept. 11, 2001,'' Bush said.
]
] You considered it necessary? Or you consider it necessary only
] after getting your ass handed to you by the media during the
] last week?
]
] Seriously this man so transparent. Why would any vote for him
] in Nov?

If I vote for him (and I haven't made up my mind yet), it would be because I agree with many of his policies and goals, and I trust that what he says he wants to do, is what he really wants to do.

So far, I have not seen anything from Kerry that makes me trust anything he says. He'll say one thing one day, and then flop around and say something completely different the next. When Bush says something, even if I disagree with it, I at least get the sense that he's speaking from his core beliefs. Some of those beliefs (protecting the country, fighting terrorism, being proactive against gathering threats) I strongly agree with. Others (especially his views on marriage, and a woman's right to choose) I strongly *disagree* with. So, I'm still undecided. The worst-case scenario for me if he were elected, would be fear of what he'd do during the next four years to the upper ranks of judgeships around the country, including the Supreme Court. I don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and abortions made illegal.

As for the flap about Rice testifying, I see both sides of it. I *don't* think that the National Security Advisor should be required to testify before Congress as a matter of course. Then again, this was a special case.

And what I really hate, is the idea that a 9/11 investigation is being used like this during an election year. I agree that it's worthwhile to find out the truth, but I see many other motivations here than truth-finding. I see Democrats who are hungry to find anything that they can use to attack the current administration, just so that they can give their own candidate a boost. In other words, if it weren't an election year, I don't think they'd be all so hot and bothered about this investigation. I also really despise any insinuation that the White House knew about the impending attack but did nothing to stop it. That's just absurd.

] And what I really hate, is the idea that a 9/11 investigation
] is being used like this during an election year. I agree that
] it's worthwhile to find out the truth, but I see many other
] motivations here than truth-finding.

Both sides are making this political. Clarke to sell books, but Bush to pospone the release of important information regarding how well he and his administration handled one of the worst events in American History. Which is do you care about more?

] this investigation. I also really despise any insinuation
] that the White House knew about the impending attack but did
] nothing to stop it. That's just absurd.

I agree as well.

My complain is Bush's decisions are based seemly *entirely* on public opinion. He didn't think Rice testifing was important until after the media reamed him for a week. Bush kept moving the Exit date from Iraq earlier and earlier the more soldiers died. A man who makes policy based on opinion polls is not a man to be President. That statement applies to all candidate or officals.

Acidus wrote:
] My complain is Bush's decisions are based seemly *entirely* on
] public opinion.

] Bush kept moving the Exit date from Iraq earlier and earlier the
] more soldiers died.

Can you show me a source on that? I was under the impression that the June 30 date was set last year and hasn't been changed. Were there different dates set at some point?

Acidus wrote:
] ] And what I really hate, is the idea that a 9/11
] investigation
] ] is being used like this during an election year. I agree
] that
] ] it's worthwhile to find out the truth, but I see many other
] ] motivations here than truth-finding.
]
] Both sides are making this political. Clarke to sell books,
] but Bush to pospone the release of important information
] regarding how well he and his administration handled one of
] the worst events in American History. Which is do you care
] about more?
]
] ] this investigation. I also really despise any insinuation
] ] that the White House knew about the impending attack but did
]
] ] nothing to stop it. That's just absurd.
]
] I agree as well.
]
] My complain is Bush's decisions are based seemly *entirely* on
] public opinion. He didn't think Rice testifing was important
] until after the media reamed him for a week. Bush kept moving
] the Exit date from Iraq earlier and earlier the more soldiers
] died. A man who makes policy based on opinion polls is not
] a man to be President. That statement applies to all
] candidate or officals.

Also, another important part of this is that he chose not to act . He chose not to act when there was a REAL threat, and acted on another that was founded in BULLSHIT. Maybe if he listened to the INTELLIGENCE instead of the cliffs notes versions, he wouldn't come across as being such a dumb fuck.

Acidus wrote:
] My complain is Bush's decisions are based seemly *entirely* on
] public opinion. He didn't think Rice testifing was important
] until after the media reamed him for a week. Bush kept moving
] the Exit date from Iraq earlier and earlier the more soldiers
] died. A man who makes policy based on opinion polls is not
] a man to be President. That statement applies to all
] candidate or officals.

Hrm. So you're saying that the President should never make policy decisions based on public opinion? I'd argue the opposite. The President should almost always make policy decisions based on public opinion in a democracy. There are exceptions. In particular, cases where classified information, complex strategic issues, or civil rights issues are at hand are particular cases where public opinion may be reasonably over-ruled. However, this is a highly politicized thing. This has to do with public opinion. Therefore it makes perfect sense to me that decisions ought to be made based on public opinion in this context.

Elonka wrote:

] this investigation. I also really despise any insinuation
] that the White House knew about the impending attack but did
] nothing to stop it. That's just absurd.

How about August 6th, 2001? Bush received an intelligence briefing that mentioned hijackings. So says Condoleeza Rice. She qualified that though by saying it was only an "analytic brief." Sure, whatever.

The House and Senate intelligence committees wrote a joint report on Sept. 18th, 2002 about 9/11. In that report, it was stated that in July of 2001 "senior government officials" were warned of:

"a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties ... (it) will occur with little or no warning."

I don't consider it absurd that the White House knew. As for whether they allowed it to happen, it is kind of scary to think they would do that. Off-course airplanes were intercepted 67 times in 2001 prior to 9/11 as part of standard operating procedures. With the apparent stand-down orders for our air defense on 9/11, it seems pretty obvious to me it was an inside job.

The FAA was putting out plenty of warnings that summer about threats. I could list them all but a Google search for "9/11 warnings" will show plenty of documented warnings.

Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines during the summer of 2001. He stopped based on FBI threat assessments. When he was asked by reporters if he knew anything about the threat, his answer was, "Frankly, I don't." Another time when asked, he simply walked out of his office.

The Justice Department did come out and say it was "completely unrelated" to 9/11, citing nonspecific threats against his life. Not that Ashcroft's Justice Department would try to cover for him or anything, I mean, I'm not insinuating *THAT* :)

All in all, it's kind of sad that the 9/11 commission's work is wrapping up during an election year. People like me, who aren't going to vote Republican or Democrat, Bush or Kerry, we don't care about either party. But since many people do, it cheapens the whole thing to partisan politics. This should have been done as soon as the attacks took place. That it's taken this long to get where we are is a shame. I hate the timing because it's in an election year. It becomes too convenient for both sides to turn it into just another campaign issue instead of investigating the biggest terrorist attack on US soil in our history.

There are so many facts around 9/11 that are suspicious that it's hard to digest all at once, even if you do have an open mind to it. I'm a skeptic by nature. Consider this:

"An average of 3,053 put options in Merrill Lynch are bought between September 6-10, compared to an average of 252 in the previous week. Morgan Stanley, another WTC tenant, sees 12,215 put options bought between September 7-10, when t... [ Read More (0.7k in body) ]

Hijexx wrote:
] "An average of 3,053 put options in Merrill Lynch are bought
] between September 6-10, compared to an average of 252 in the
] previous week. Morgan Stanley, another WTC tenant, sees
] 12,215 put options bought between September 7-10, when the
] previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day." --
] Independent, 10/14/01
]
] Hopefully everyone has heard about the similar AA and UAL put
] option spikes in the days up to 9/11. Why isn't this being
] investigated, pulled out of the woodwork to find the
] perpetrators? Who had foreknowledge? These questions remain
] unanswered and apparently a non-issue to the administration.

Well, last I heard, they *are* being investigated. But I'll give you credit that that particular datapoint is true, and I'm curious as well. However, I don't read "abnormal purchase activity" and come to the conclusion, "Bush knew." *Somebody* probably did though, and as carefully as the attack was planned, it wouldn't surprise me that Al Qaeda would have also used it as a moneymaking opportunity. Further, it gives the Patriot Act even more weight, to consider that tracking unusual purchase activity like that could help thwart another attack.

More info here:

 http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.htm

Elonka wrote:

] I'm curious as well. However, I don't read "abnormal purchase
] activity" and come to the conclusion, "Bush knew."

I think he knew because he was getting briefings about hijackings and spectacular terrorist attacks in the coming weeks. And that's just what you can find in a cursory search of news articles. I find it hard to believe he didn't know it was coming. I do look forward to Rice's testimony next week. If nobody asks her more detail about the August 6th briefing or if she cries "national security, can't answser" I think I'm going to puke.

] *Somebody* probably did though, and as carefully as the attack was
] planned, it wouldn't surprise me that Al Qaeda would have also
] used it as a moneymaking opportunity. Further, it gives the
] Patriot Act even more weight, to consider that tracking
] unusual purchase activity like that could help thwart another
] attack.

PROMIS would have picked this unusual activity up and raised the red flags. We never needed the Patriot act for this. The technology has been in place since the 80's for financial market event correlation.

] http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.htm

Cool, thanks, that's a good link. I never thought to check Snopes. Althought it is kind of disheartening to me that this was even considered an urban legend. Is it that far out of the realm of possibility? Have these issues all been reduced to mere entertainment/curiosity vale? Nevertheless, maybe someone will chance across it there and say, "Hmm..."

Oh, I had the #'s mixed up, it was Merrill Lynch that had the 12000 put options not Morgan Stanley:

http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html

So, I've mentioned WTC7 in a couple of thread discussions with you but I haven't read you comment on it. What do you make of the WTC7 collapse?

My complain is Bush's decisions are based seemly *entirely* on public opinion. He didn't think Rice testifing was important until after the media reamed him for a week. Bush kept moving the Exit date from Iraq earlier and earlier the more soldiers died. A man who makes policy based on opinion polls is not a man to be President. That statement applies to all candidate or officals.

I see this as president bush flip-flopping on an issue. Of course this isn't an original thought, Terry Neal at the washington post has a great article listing president bush's flip-flops at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41610-2004Apr1.html

I doubt the white house will see this as hypocrisy and stop attacking john kerry, but we can always hope.

Elonka wrote:
] As for the flap about Rice testifying, I see both sides of it.
] I *don't* think that the National Security Advisor should be
] required to testify before Congress as a matter of course.
] Then again, this was a special case.

Why? I don't mean to drag you into a debate here. I honestly don't understand what the downside of executive testimony is and I've yet to hear a good explanation. I figure you can probably offer one. In Parliamentary systems the PM is required to respond to questioning on a regular basis, so its really not unheard of.