Except that Clinton did approve/order the assassination of Osama years before,,,,

It was pretty evidant that it was AQ from the beginning and that was said from the start. Even the news broadcasters said this smells like AQ and they had been frothing at the mouth to hit the World Trade Center so it's a pretty good guess. Not to mention they had the flight records pulled before the last plane crashed and every available Federal Agent and CIA Agent were looking into EVERYONE on EVERY flight and it wouldn't take more then a matter of minutes to find the red flags.

Hell even the CIA Director who was the CIA director under Clinton said from the beginning it has to be AQ, this is their signature, but they did not do a rush to judgement untill they had enough evidence to say with a strong probability that it was AQ, plus the prior intelligance they basically sat on including the names of some of the hijackers.

Hell, I watched it live on TV and I wasn't big into politics or world events then as I am now but I said to my dad and mom without even having to think about it, "Bin Laden finally did it, he got us."

No he didn't, even high ranking CIA officers from the Bin Laden unit said they had several opportunities to assassinate him and because they saw women or children present or because he didn't want to risk war with the Taliban he told them to stand down.

so, he didnt approve the missions upon which he allegedly gave a 'stand down' order,,,?


curios

He may have gave the ok for the missions but he always chickened out at the last minute making them all a giant waste of time, money, talent and resources and opening us up to further attacks.

Clinton should be held responsable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaNIBFSMjb8&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLDA7221DF4056F7E4

Wow, an interview with a CONVICTED liar. Yea, he is believeable over the tons of CIA and military officers who said he dropped the ball on numerous occasions on several situations, not just OBL.

I know one personally who was the head of the White House Military Office who resigned his commission because of the way Clinton handled things and treated the members of the military. He also ca Nuclear Football for Clinton on numerous occasions. He was also a Democrat prior to working in the Clinton White House. Lt. Col Buzz Patterson, I doubt he would lie about these things being he voted for Clinton and helped with with campaign.

Well, if your personal acquaintance says so, I guess thats the only truth that counts,,,,,

More then he has said it, read the sworn statements of veteran CIA officers from the Bin Laden Unit and the SAD who said that OBL was in their crosshairs and laser sights for the aircraft attacks and Clinton wouldn't give the order.

sworn statement? sworn for what purpose and at what venue?

can you point me to them?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the 911 attacks were
allowed to proceed. There is every evidence that our government
responded as best they could but had little time and few options.
The only people who are responsible for the attacks are those who
planned and executed them - the militant radical Islamists of Al-Qaida.

See http://www.debunking911.com/

1993 First attack on WTC .. was it thwarted?

1995 Oklahoma City Bombing.. was it thwarted?

1996 Khobar Towers .. was it thwarted?

1998 US Embassies Kenya Tanzania.. were they thwarted?

2000 USS Cole ... was it thwarted?


Looks like your boy clinton did a real good job thwarting all the terrorist attacks during his administration..

Unbelievable..

Well they might try to claim that he thwarted attack on the USS The Sullivans when in acuality the ragtag terrorists overloaded their raft with explosives and it sank in route.........

The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn’t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.

In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.

In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.

Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.”

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

“It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

Global dragnet“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec/05/opinion/oe-ijaz05

Bill Clinton denies it now, but he once admitted he passed up an opportunity to extradite Osama bin Laden.

And NewsMax has the former President making the claim on audiotape. [You can listen to the tape yourself] -- Click Here

Clinton's comments and his actions relating to American efforts to capture bin Laden have taken on renewed interest because of claims made in a new ABC movie, the "Path to 9/11," that suggests Clinton dropped the ball during his presidency. Clinton has also angrily denied claims the Monica Lewinsky scandal drew his attention away from dealing with national security matters like capturing bin Laden.

During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.

9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote."


During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.

But other evidence suggests the Clinton administration did not take advantage of offers to get bin Laden -- and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was exploding during this time period.

At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.

On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."

During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.

Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.

Then came the bombshell offer:

"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.

Still, with the extraordinarily fortuitous offer on the table, back in Washington President Clinton had other things on his mind.

A timeline of events chronicled in the Starr Report shows that during the period of late January through March 1996, Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was then at its most intense.

On Feb. 4, 1996, for instance - two days before Ambassador Carney's key meeting with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, the president was focused not on Osama bin Laden, but instead on the 23-year-old White House intern.

Their rendezvous that day included a sexual encounter followed by a leisurely chat between Clinton and Lewinsky, as the two "sat and talked [afterward] for about 45 minutes," according to the Starr Report.

Later in the afternoon that same day, as Sudanese officials weighed their decision to offer bin Laden to the U.S., Clinton found time to call Lewinsky "[to say] he had enjoyed their time together." If there were any calls from Clinton to the State Department or Khartoum that day, the records have yet to surface in published reports.

The Feb. 4 encounter with Lewinsky followed a period of intense contact detailed in the Starr report in interviews with the former White House intern, including a sexual encounter on Jan. 6, 1996, several sessions of phone sex during the week of Jan. 14 - 21, and another sexual encounter on Jan. 21.

Sudan's offer to the U.S. for bin Laden's extradition remained on the table for at least a month, and was reiterated by Sudanese officials who traveled to Washington as late as March 10, 1996.

On March 3, Sudan's Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa met secretly with Ambassador Carney, another State Department official and the CIA's Africa bureau Director of Operations at an Arlington, Va., hotel, according to Miniter's book.

Erwa was handed a list of issues the U.S. wanted taken care of if relations were to improve. The list included a demand for information on bin Laden's terrorist network inside Sudan.

Erwa replied that he would have to consult with Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir about the list. When he returned for a March 10, 1996 meeting with the CIA's Africa bureau chief, "Erwa would be empowered to make an extraordinary offer," writes Miniter.

On instructions from its president, the government of Sudan agreed to arrest bin Laden and hand him over to U.S law enforcement at a time and place of the Clinton administration's choosing. "Where should we send him?" Erwa asked the CIA representative.

In his 2002 speech President Clinton has acknowledged being fully briefed on the Sudanese efforts to turn over the 9/11 mastermind, admitting that he made the final decision to turn the offer down.

As chronicled in the Starr report, however, Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky proved to be a growing distraction around this time.

Two weeks before the secret meeting between Erwa, Carney and the CIA bureau chief, the president summoned Lewinsky to the White House to inform her that he "no longer felt right" about their relationship and it would have to be suspended until after the election.

Lewinsky explained, however, that Clinton's decision to put their relationship on hold did little to change its basic character, telling Starr's investigators, "There'd continue to be this flirtation when we'd see each other."

The Starr report noted, "In late February or March [1996], the president telephoned her at home and said he was disappointed that, because she had already left the White House for the evening, they could not get together."

The call, Lewinsky said, "sort of implied to me that he was interested in starting up again."

On March 10, 1996, as Sudanese Defense Minister Erwa was making his extraordinary offer for bin Laden's arrest to the CIA's Africa bureau chief, Clinton met with Lewinsky in the White House.

The Starr report:

"On March 10, 1996, Ms. Lewinsky took a visiting friend, Natalie Ungvari, to the White House. They bumped into the president, who said when Ms. Lewinsky introduced them, 'You must be her friend from California.' Ms. Ungvari was 'shocked' that the president knew where she was from."

Though there was no physical contact that day, three weeks later, on March 31, 1996, Clinton resumed his sexual relationship with Lewinsky.

It was around this time, the president later admitted, that he was involved in delicate negotiations to try to persuade Riyadh to take bin Laden, after refusing to accept his extradition to the U.S.

"I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have," Clinton admitted in the 2002 speech. "But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

On April 7, 1996, Monica Lewinsky was transferred to the Pentagon. Around the same time, the administration's hunt for bin Laden finally seemed to begin in earnest. Just weeks after Clinton spurned Sudan's bin Laden offer, for instance, the CIA created a separate operational unit dedicated to tracking down bin Laden in Sudan.

But it happened too late to capture the 9/11 mastermind. On May 18, 1996, bin Laden boarded a chartered plane in Khartoum with his wives, children, some 150 al-Qaida jihadists and a cache of arms - and flew off to Jalalabad, Afghanistan.


TRANSCRIPT: Ex-President Clinton's Remarks on Osama bin Laden Delivered to the Long Island Association's Annual Luncheon Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY Feb. 15, 2002

To hear NewsMax.com's exclusive audio recording of ex-President Clinton explaining why he turned the Sudanese offer down, Click Here.

Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:

CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?

CLINTON: Well, it's interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.

We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.

So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got - uh - well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and - but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn't care what we did to them.

Now, if you look back - in the hindsight of history, everybody's got 20/20 vision - the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.

Here's the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it - no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.

But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.

And we would have had to make the decision in advance that's the reverse of what President Bush made - and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided - this may be frustrating to you now that we don't have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?

He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?

Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.

Secondly, they supported terrorism and we'd send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.

Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we'd have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.

So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed.

Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.

So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.

Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, "Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children."

But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml

He was to busy nailing Monica to be bothered with Bin Laden!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAR ON TERROR
Clinton literally had Osama in his sights
Pentagon 'had images of his face,' yet ex-president refused to pull trigger

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 05, 2003
9:30 pm Eastern


By Paul Sperry
© 2011 WND


The following is excerpted from Paul Sperry's hard-hitting new book, "Crude Politics," which was released in August by Thomas Nelson Publishers imprint WND Books, and is now in its third printing.

"We need to finish the job," former President Clinton last year advised President Bush concerning Osama bin Laden, who is still at large.
Of course, he's one to talk.

The only time Clinton got tough on bin Laden was in 1998, in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal, when he needed a big media distraction.

Twice in 2000, including one time after the USS Cole bombing, Clinton had bin Laden in his sights and failed to pull the trigger, according to a senior Pentagon official familiar with covert counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan at the time.

He said the CIA had equipped pro-U.S. factions on the ground in Afghanistan with high-tech surveillance gear from the Defense Department to track bin Laden.

They were armed with sniper rifles and shoulder-fired rocket launchers, the official explained, and had the OK to assassinate bin Laden on orders from U.S. intelligence back in Washington.

"There were surveillance systems brought in-country, and they were doing observations and watching some of the likely places bin Laden frequented, such as Tora Bora, and guest-houses in the area," said the official, who requested anonymity. "And we were viewing" the satellite images relayed from Afghanistan.

"Some of it was collaborative – some DOD, some CIA – but we were looking," he said. "And Clinton had opportunities to take him out and didn't take them."

"One was more a command-and-control issue – when they should have made a decision to shoot, but it never got out of country, because the bureaucracy of carrying [the order] back [to Afghanistan] through channels was too much, and the opportunity just disappeared," he said. "And then another one when Clinton said 'No.'"

The Pentagon official explained that Clinton feared the paid CIA recruits might hit innocent Afghans.

"There was actionable intelligence provided by that gear, by the optics," he said. "But once it went up the chain of command, it got into stuff like, 'How sure are you guys about that 6-5 guy in the middle of that group? It kind of looks like him, but how sure are you?'"

"Clinton didn't want to have an accidental shot kill innocent civilians," he added. "But everyone was pretty certain it was Osama bin Laden. We had images of his face."

Clinton certainly deserves his share of blame for failing to take out bin Laden when he had the chance.

However, that was before Sept. 11. Bin Laden did not attack and kill thousands of American civilians on American soil when Clinton was commander in chief. That happened on Bush's watch, and he essentially blew a prime opportunity to take out bin Laden when U.S. intelligence had a fix on him in his Tora Bora rats' nest. He blew it because he and his oil cronies were preoccupied with another opportunity – taking out the Caspian energy export pipeline-blocking Taliban in Kabul and Kandahar.

Sept. 11 should have been the last straw. Everyone counted on Bush to decapitate the al-Qaida leadership once and for all. He had a clear national mandate.

U.S. Central Command officers have told me that they had hoped for a narrowly defined and concentrated search-and-destroy mission against al-Qaida in Afghanistan – go in, get bin Laden, and get out. What they got instead was a broadly defined, long, complicated mission that has included Afghan proxy forces, humanitarian airlifts, regime change, nation building, economic development, and occupation – all the things that Bush's pal and special envoy in Kabul and now in Baghdad, "Unocal Zal" Khalilzad, had on his wish list for his native country, a list that became the White House's operating manual in Afghanistan. The plan was so comprehensive and complex that it virtually guaranteed finding bin Laden would slip down the priority list.

To be sure, presidents throughout history have been accused of putting business interests first, even ahead of national security. In the most recent example, Clinton was accused of being in the pocket of U.S. aerospace-defense contractors, such as Loral and Hughes, that were hungry for deals in Communist China, which has nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at American cities. He even had his own Caspian pipeline scandal. Millionaire Lebanese oil man Roger Tamraz gave the 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection effort some $300,000 in exchange for White House access.

Tamraz was trying to get U.S. backing for the development of an alternate pipeline route from Azerbaijan to a Mediterranean port in Turkey – this one through Armenia, Azerbaijan's enemy. Despite warnings from a conscientious NSC aide, the White House hosted him at several events. The shady Tamraz got his access, if not his pipeline.

Sleazy as it was, the funds-for-access deal was not tied to an American war. And this is by no means just any war. This is an epic battle to protect your family and mine, where we live, from al-Qaida, the most dangerous and effective network of terrorists in the history of terrorism.

Read more: Clinton literally had Osama in his sights http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=21131#ixzz1gw8x31VQ

Terrorist attacks by foreign extremists. No government conspiracy. Inefficiency and poor organizational structure combined with a sense of disbelief led to mistakes and miscommunication.

Our country has a poor record of preventing terrorism against the U.S., whether outside or inside our borders. This includes domestic terrorism. So it's not surprising that our government dropped the ball on this one.

Public emotions demanded a response. Not providing one would have resulted in a backlash against the government. The government took an opportunistic approach, manufacturing a reason to invade Iraq. Going after Osama Bin Laden (and other Al Qaeda leaders by default) was justified based on history, intelligence, and Al Qaeda tapes, but Al Qaeda is not the end-all be-all. There are other terrorist groups who may yet cause problems. We cannot keep invading countries to wipe out all terrorist cells without suffering repercussions internationally. There has to be a better way, but at the time, patience was short amongst the American public.

I could list off a number of terrorist acts, domestic or foreign, that were not prevented. Despite these events, I have long been amazed by the level of complacence and denial that most Americans have when it comes to terrorism within the U.S. It was 9/11 that finally forced the majority of Americans to take notice. That is because of the shock and magnitude of the 9/11 attacks. It was by far the deadliest and most destructive act of terrorism Americans have ever experienced. It wasn't just the government that dropped the ball. We all were caught with our pants down.

All the indignance we have over 9/11 could have, and should have, been applied to the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1st bombing of the WTC, the Atlanta Olympic bombing, and a number of other events as well. Sept. 11th was neither the first nor last instance of terrorism within or against the U.S. (Remember the D.C. Snipers and the Anthrax letters?)

Now we pay much more attention than we used to as citizens, both as government officials and civilians, even if we began doing so 10 or even 20 years too late. Now the chances of another Oklahoma City, let alone another 9/11, are much less than they were prior to 2001.

It happened. We learned from our mistake. Let's move forward instead of dwelling on the past, but never forget.

I do not believe the official version of 911.
I havent from day one.

Just for starters it takes a huge stretch to imagine these novice pilots could execut the complicated manouvers needed to hit the targets. None of them could realy fly and only had basic instruction in flying a cessna and according to the flight instructers they did that poorly.


Something about three modern skyscrapers falling straight down at near free fall speed alsmo raises an eye brow.

The five danceing Israelis who were arrested after they were viewed filming and celibrateing the collapse makes me wonder WTF.

The "patriot act" was allready on the shelf and implemented shortly after the attack.


We then were treated to a relentless propaganda campaign about Saddams weapons of mass destruction and in the hystarical climate we were led off to another war we had no business fighting.


While we wage a war on drugs at home Afghanistan is haveing record opium crops all the while it is under US military occupation.


It was the biggest crime scene in generations yet we spent more investigateing monicas blue dress than we did on the 911 commision report.


Amount of money allocated for the 1986 Challenger disaster investigation: $75 million
Amount of money allocated for the 2004 Columbia disaster investigation: $50 million
Amount of money allocated for Clinton-Lewinsky investigation: $40 million
Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49d_1190054204



The 911 commision even says it was lied too.

"The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission. "
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php


We are were we are today because of 911. It laid the foundation for the survalience police state we live in today.


Mission accomplished.

The fact that both Bush and Cheneye refused to go under oath to the 911 commission pretty much tells me they have something to hide and when you have to hide your usualy guilty of something.

Not only that, but when they did talk about it privately, they did it TOGETHER. Now why would they do that? Hmm......

I don't believe any of these official stories either. Like what Mariah said it was a planned event so they could justify doing all of the **** they have done since. They NEVER could have gotten away with it without it, so they needed something that would scare the people enough to go along with them. Needless to say it's worked like a charm.

Oh and for those that say if it was an inside job it would have been known by now? Fact is, it IS known, it's just that those who try to speak out are silenced, discredited or in some cases even killed when they try to. There is a HUGE coverup here to keep people from knowing the truth.