Sen. Patrick Leahy Questions Why Bush Administration Allowed 9/11 to Happen

“A Total Rollback Of Everything This Country Has Stood For”: Sen. Patrick Leahy Blasts Congressional Approval of Detainee Bill -

I caught this interview with Senator Patrick Leahy on Friday regarding the approval of the new detainee bill. At one point in the show Amy Goodman asks Leahy how anything would be different if the democrats were back in power since some of them actually voted for the detainee bill. In response to this question Leahy points out that at least then questions would be rasied, and he made the following very interesting statement:

The two questions that the congress will not ask, because republicans wont allow it, is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama Bin Laden cornered why didnt they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions these questions would have been asked years ago..

You can find the MP3 of the entire interview via the link above. The quote above comes from around the 19 minute mark. If you think this is worth spreading be sure to digg it!


He definitely needs to avoid flying on small planes.

Because on its face

"Why did they allow it to happen?" is a pretty clear avowal of LIHOPpery.


That is all I can say,,, WOW. as stated in below comment "The Worm" You are right...the truth is floating to the surface.

Please Motivate people to vote in November and take this House and Senate.....Get active. The time is now boys.

And if the October Surprise is to Bomb IRAN, ohh boy...I don't even have a comment for that.


The worm is damned near turned!

Amy Goodman, huh? Phoney

Amy Goodman, huh? Phoney left/right nonsense.

You Know...

It occurred to me that getting them in a courtroom with LIHOP, will probably result in the exposure of MIHOP. Can you imagine how many people would be willing to talk for the crimes of 9/11?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."



"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."


I l ike these comments...very brave from such a well known politician.
Makes ya wonder who else in Washington has these views?

I don't care what anyone says, I fully support LIHOP.

LIHOP is something even the "debunkers" can't touch.

Is MC Hammer a Truther?

That would make for a pretty funny 9/11 Truth music video.


Personally, I don't care WHAT brings "a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end."

So long as SOMETHING does.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


How about nonpartisan?

Who Else In Washington

Many and more coming forward questioning 9/11. Check out this new website for all the names and their quotes. Alan Miller says a few more have come forward in the last few weeks since the site started up.

If you find the site interesting, take a few seconds and thank Mr. Miller. It's important people know there are powerful people speaking out and all we seek is Truth and accountablity.
No matter what your beliefs concerning 9/11, one thing everyone agrees 100% is that there was countless failures on the part of our government and military. Even "incompetence" should have been dealt with, not rewarded with promotions or being re-elected. If you address the "incompetence" most of us know that the true face of COMPLICITY of Treason and Mass Murder will be naked for the world to see!

Of course it was MIHOP, but LIHOP can open closed eyes...

Of course it was MIHOP, but LIHOP can open closed eyes. IMO, once a person becomes interested in LIHOP, it's only a matter of days or weeks before he/she is MIHOP due to things like WTC-7, NORAD stand-down, unreleased Pentagon videos, etc.

I suppose Leahy still remembers his anthrax letter...

I believe Leahy was sent one of the anthrax letters because he was holding out against the Patriot Act among other things. I guess he knows who was behind that and 9/11. I hope he can do something about it.

BTW, Amy Goodman is a disgusting gatekeeper.

yeah, he was one of the

yeah, he was one of the targets of the Cheney cabals anthrax letters. he knows full well that 9/11 was an inside job. hes not a stupid man, which is why they sent him the anthrax in the first place. Leahy better watch himself if he keeps up this talk, he might end up like Wellstone. we should all contact Leahy and encourage him to keep it up, not sit here and take shots at him.

Doesn't anybody notice the

Doesn't anybody notice the dreaded and draconian nature of the bill?

Of course, but don't expect

Of course, but don't expect anything other than a superficial glance by the MSM.  Seems the whole Foley scandal is more interesting than the death of the Bill of Rights.

If ever there was a moment to step up, it's now!

Whether Democrat, Republican or sleaz-ball MSM... Anyone who continues to support the official LIE needs to sound off. There ARE folks who know something and can break this wide open.

Someone needs to give Bushco an October surprise they weren't planning on! OUT these war-mongering bastards... while there's still a country left to save!


Definitely a LIHOP comment.. Right now, I'm leaning that way, too. Especially after watching the Dateline show with five air traffic controllers from Boston Logan recounting what they experienced on 9/11.

In a court of law, their testimony would trump about anyone's. Air traffic controller Pete Zeluski's claim that he heard Middle Eastern voices of terror coming from Flight 11 was not disputed by any of the others who were around him.

Now maybe Zeluski was tricked by more sophisticated equipment, or maybe the five air traffic controllers were bought out and are lying, but right now, if we stand with what the air traffic controllers said, we got to go with LIHOP.

In which case we should run with Leahy's comment.


no matter how you put it. Besides, even if one dismissed the evident demolitions of the twin towers, there's still WTC7.

There is no way to reconcile "incompetence-LIHOP" with that.

thanks Bruce

This "let's settle for LIHOP" line is pretty sick. It basically means let's make sure people keep thinking that we're under attack from shadowy Muslims linked to "al Qaeda". It means we really need the "Patriot Act" because there are evil terrists out to get us.

I would like to know how any 9/11 Truther could not think that the main suspect in 9/11 is Larry Silverstein. He owned three buildings that were demolished that day, not by planes hijacked by Arab Muslims, but by explosives set by... I want to know who set the explosives that brought those buildings down on the rescue workers. It wasn't alk Qaeda. It wasn't Pakistan. Larry Silverstein knows who did it. How has that evil creature gotten away with destroying his property, murdering thousands, and collecting billions in insurance to boot?

Since there is no evidence for hijackings having taken place, except a smattering of recordings no more credible than recordings of Osama taking credit for 9/11, the real focus of 9/11 truth has to be on the illegal demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7, and the destruction of evidence in building 7, and the theft of property (gold, etc.) from the complex.

We have not come this far to settle for some more face saving BS like LIHOP. 9/11 was a fraud from beginning to end. And the end is coming soon.

i say it regularly on this

i say it regularly on this site. LIHOP protects those that pull the strings of the puppets. LIHOP stops at the White House and doesnt go any further. and i totally agree with your point about the "evil scary muslims". LIHOP shows that the obviously contrived and farcical "war on terror" is still legitimate. it is not. exposing 9/11, to me, is about more than exposing the crime itself but exposing the "war on terror" for the fraud that it is. does terrorism exist? yes. does it warrant 3 wars and counting? hell no. the irrational fear must stop, and MIHOP will show the source of the fear to be a massive lie. LIHOP preserves that fear, while MIHOP shatters that fear and turns it into anger. anger that will be directed at finding out EVERYTHING and EVERYONE involved in 9/11. that said, we must still support anyone who at least shows that they are moving in the right direction. we must support Leahy and show him we are watching.

Well put. LIHOP preserves

Well put.
LIHOP preserves the "Orwellian" rule by fear, where we have to invest all our energy and money into "protection" from some elusive enemy, an enemy that can destroy all or parts of major cities without warning. When the truth is, terrorism never got that dangerous, they only bombed embassies abroad and stuff, but they can't singlehandedly level the whole WTC complex. And these terrorists are also not on a "blind rage" to attack western countries, but have a political motive, and therefore target some things specifically, like the military bases abroad, Israel, the Iraqi occupation etc.

The old statements from real Osama even sound less hostile than Bush now. He spoke of Americans electing a "patriotic government" - which is what we don't have right now.

Good post string! n/t



Citizens power of arrest?

exactly. i was talking with

exactly. i was talking with someone this weekend that says'"they didnt make it happen, they just knew it was coming and did nothing to stop it". i then naturally asked them how al qaeda smuggled bombs into WTC7(which of course holds the DoD,FBI,CIA etc). no answer as usual. people just dont want to accept that 3000 lives are expendable to many in our leadership. facts and evidence be damned, they just dont want to believe its possible. the crime and the cover-up both seem too "X-Files" for some. reality is stranger than fiction.........


Perfectly put.

LIHOP doesn't explain WTC7.

For starters.

Buildings don't commit suicide.

Personally, I find it pretty karmic

that greed, imo the main motive for WTC7's levelling, provided the fatal blow to any and all official narratives.

MIHOP has its weaknesses too.

How do you explain the eye-witness account of Pete Zeluski, the very first guy to find something going amiss on 9/11. He's the air traffic controller in Boston who was monitoring Flight 11, when it first went off course. His account, as seen on Dateline, tells us that he heard Middleeastern voices on that plane telling people not to do anything stupid. He said those voices sounded like the voices of terror.

In a court of law, his testimony blows MIHOP to pieces, at least in regard to Flight 11.

Has anyone thought about a combination of LIHOP/MIHOP? In other words, let's say Cheney and co. saw that Saddam and Al Qaeda were preparing an attack. They let it proceed, but they then enhanced it to be even more successful to fit their purposes, such as getting rid of WTC7 and blowing up the Budget Office at the Pentagon which had all the records of the missing $2.3 trillion.

I mean, Cheney and Bush had plenty of time to know what was coming, and frankly if they just LIHOP, it wouldnt have been nearly as successful an attack.

So what I'm suggesting is that Muslim extremists were planning to carry this out, and little did they know they were going to be used in a bigger plan of evil.

This would require a combination of LIHOP and MIHOP.

im sorry, i dont wanna bash

im sorry, i dont wanna bash you too bad, so i"ll let you clarify first. you just said Saddam and Al Qaeda were behind 9/11? are you serious? no wonder you are trying to push LIHOP.......

saw that Saddam and Al Qaeda

saw that Saddam and Al Qaeda were preparing an attack.

good eyes ;)


you're mincing words, my friend. Answer me, how do you account for the testimony of the Boston air traffic controllers?

Come on, you posted the Dateline video for all of us to watch. Why should I believe that these guys, who are simply midlevel professionals doing their job, would LIE, LIE, LIE on national TV. These are guys who do their 40 hours a week, go home, watch the Reds Sox play and drink beer. Why should they make up a story about what they saw, especially knowing how much scrutinty 9/11 is getting.

Are they linguistics experts?

Could they testify conclusively as to the geographic origin of the accents they heard for two sentences or whatever? They sounded pretty iffy about that to me and in any event, that is NOT their expertise. So give it a rest, dmc, I've seen this same post from you about ten times in the last couple of days.

Why don't you check out what PATSY means -- Webster Tarpley is very informative on this topic.

It has nothing to do with LIE LIE LYING, it has to do with overestimating the importance of their after-the-fact interpretation of what they heard.

i never said they lied.. in

i never said they lied.. in fact i rarely elicit any opinion on anything, cause opinions are like buttholes ;)

Let me clarify

Who's to say Saddam and bin Laden weren't behind at least some element of 9/11? Hey, Iraq and Muslim fundamentalists have every reason to hate us. In case you havent checked the news lately, they are kicking our butts over there in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Besides, both Saddam and bin Laden had former CIA connections, so there could have been a cross/double cross/triple cross going on.
Look, we are truth seekers here. If you immediately assume there are no Muslim terrorists out there, then you're in just as much denial as someone who thinks the gov't story on 9/11 is like mamma's apple pie. And you are going to alienate yourself from half the American people who know there are Muslims who hate us and are scared to death of how fast Islamic radicalism is growing around the world.
What I'm suggesting as a possible scenario is this, (and this is only a loose draft, but it is a combination of LIHOP and MIHOP.)
1) CIA and Mossad knew Saddam and al-Qaeda were setting something up. In fact our agents may have completely infiltrated Muslim core groups and even helped to suggest an attack of America, by watering the seeds of hatred against the US and Israel.
2) Planning by al-Qaeda, with funding and help by Saddam (and maybe some western NWO money), is watched and nurtured for months in advance by western intelligence. Nothing is done to interrupt them. (This is the LIHOP part of the story).
3) Planning by certain neo-cons gets underway to incorporate what al-Qaeda is doing into a larger plan, (this is the MIHOP part), one that allows for the neocons to wipe out important damning investigations at WTC7 and to obliterate Budget Office records at the Pentagon. This, perhaps, is not part of the al-Qaeda plan, which I suggest may have been smaller in scope, perhaps just to hit the two towers.
4) Islamic terrorists are successful (maybe with some help from the MIHOPS) in boarding the two flights heading for the main towers. This reconciles with the eye-witness accounts of the air traffic controllers, whose accounts cannot be ignored. For all we know, the terrorists may not even be controlling the planes, but they are on them as they originally planned.
5) The final two planes, Pentagon and PA, may have been boarded by terrorists, or maybe they were completely MIHOP, designed to get rid of damning records and investigations. The fact that no large passenger planes were found at the Pentagon and PA makes me wonder if they weren't totally MIHOP.
6) Someone in the U.S. military sees what's coming down and orders the PA flight--whatever it is--shot down. Could this have been the plane intended for WTC7?
7) The MIHOPS immediately blame the whole incident of 9/11 on the Muslim fundamentalists whom they had been watching and nurturing for months. This parallels how Oswald was set up as a stooge for the Kennedy assassination. The LIHOP plan helps the MIHOPs build their cover and develop a scapegoat. Not just a mythical scapegoat, but one that was actually involved. They then walk away, making sure the scapegoat is captured.
8) But I would suggest the MIHOPS knew things screwed up with WTC7. This is just too obvious and blatant a mistake. This makes me want to believe the fourth plane failed to hit its intended target, thanks perhaps in part to some higher ups in the military who wanted nothing to do with the MIHOP scheme, once they began to figure it out.
9) The 9/11 truth movement is birthed, with WTC7 and the hole in the Pentagon wall as the two most obvious proofs of a government involvement, and these are the centerpieces for holding the movement together.
10) The 9/11 truth movement, however, gets stuck in the mud, because it stubbornly refuses to believe that there was an Islamic plot in the works to begin with. Those who believe in MIHOP keep beating up on those who believe in LIHOP, not realizing the two groups each have a piece of the whole puzzle.

Okay, Chris....

That's a first shot at clarification. I dont see anyone out there trying to reconcile LIHOP and MIHOP so I tried to give it a shot.

i didnt say that there is no

i didnt say that there are no muslim terrorists out there. they just dont warrant a "war on terror", and they DIDNT do 9/11. and the very fact that you think Saddam may have been involved in 9/11 makes me question your motives.

questioning motives

Question my motives all you want. I don't care.

Fact is: more Americans (44%) think Saddam was behind 9/11 then everyone (37%) who believes the government is covering up for 9/11. Add up all those who believe MIHOP and LIHOP and it doesnt equal the numbers who STILL believe Saddam was behind it.

Maybe if you reached out to those 44%, you might see the numbers in the movement grow. But if you lead with the notion that Saddam was a paper tiger and there are no terrorists out to get us, then you won't get past step one with all these people.

I dont doubt for a minute that Al-Qaeda (the database) is a breeding ground for stooges, willing to die for Allah, and unwittingly being used to die for the New World Order.

And as for Saddam, have you ever seen the famous Rumsfeld/Saddam handshake? They're ole trading buddies.

I think many in this movement are getting bindsided by this notion that there were no WMD in Iraq. Saddam had plenty of time to move his WMD to Syria or somewhere else.

ok, first you say Saddam is

ok, first you say Saddam is connected to 9/11. now you say Saddam likely had WMD's and moved them to Syria. Mr. Santorum, is that you? yes, ive seen the picture of Rummy and Saddam, that was when Reagan was funneling weapons to Saddam. hardly proves that Saddam has/had WMD. seriously, is that you Mr. Santorum? Hannity? Weldon?

You need to carefully investigate

who benefits from the idea of "Islamic terrorists."

I think a lot (most?) people here are perfectly willing to entertain the thought that there were patsies involved who were nominally Muslim and from the Middle East. Put it in the proper context, though. Al Qaeda = the Database = the list of mujahideen sponsored by the CIA/ISI to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.


"How do you explain the eye-witness account of Pete Zeluski"

It's a lie? Just like the eyewitness reports about a 757 striking the Pentagon. Just like LJ Chavez' recent "testimony". Just like Condi's "who could've imagined?". Just like Whitman's "the air is safe to breathe!". Just like Cheney's "I wasn't in the bunker!". Just like Myers "the wargames actually increased our responsiveness". Need I go on?

They can't uphold the current official story any longer, so they're aiming for limited hangout now. That the terrorists are still real and still a major threat is paramount, they'd rather let some heads roll for incompetence than expose the entire War on Terror as the scam that it is.

do you, or do you not think

sorry bruce, that comment wasnt meant for you.


I'll still answer: I think I think. Or at least, I hope so. :o)

perhaps they were under the

perhaps they were under the impression they were doing terrorism drills? perhaps they were part of an ongoing wargame that day?

it goes from LIHOP to MIHOP whenever the people in our government do anything that facilitates it happening, or to prevent it from being stopped, because without their actions it wouldn't have happened, hence it is still MIHOP even if they aren't behind the entire thing, because they facilitated it happening, and kept it from being stopped via their actions before 9/11.

with that said, LIHOP would definately lead to MIHOP, its impossible for it not to if we ever got the arguements into court.

whoa there

I understand the point you're trying to make, but saying SADDAM had any to do with this (something a pro-war, official story loving buffoon still believes in despite Bush already said the link is not there)...totally blows the point you're trying to make.

Anyways, the whole 'middle eastern' voices thing as well as phone calls from the plane could have simply been nothing more explained than the high probability that these 'hijackers' were ACTORS, in a sting operation.

Seeing as they were shepherded and funded by intelligence agencies, trained at bases, going to CIA-front flight schools, etc....they were very likely to be hired actor/agents.

There still seems to be quite a fuzzy line between if these hijackers were actual jihadists or just actors.

They could've been provocateured and been used as useful idiots. hired jihadists, unwitting that they're 'mission' is actually being managed by the enemies they think they're attacking.

Also, you can't rule out that they could've easily been under mind control. I know, very fishy and all 'conspiratorial', but we know that the CIA has a nice colorful history of those goings-on and could easily be far more advanced than simple LSD drugging. Whatever, it's a possibility.

I think a lot of the 'warnings' could say that it was a OBL/jihadist plan coming to surface, but in fact could've been just as easily farmed out by the 'counter-terrorist' agencies to make it look as though there's no way you could not blame them.

Like in the WKJO movie he brought up a good point of that the best way to frame somebody is to know everything about them and the operation.

Hired Actors?

Come on, it's one thing to hire an actor or even a stunt man to do something dangerous, but you're suggesting these guys were hired to commit suicide.
Come on, how many can you pay someone to commit suicide?

I never said that. get your

I never said that. get your head around the possibilities here.

If it's an inside job and it's MIHOP, you can bet they remoted the jets into the buildings.

not LIHOP where it would depend on the skills of the 'hijackers' to hit the buildings in the right spots.

They were most likely hired actors to ACT like hijackers, thinking they were a part of a major clue that it would actually be for real. therefore not previously knowing they were going to die.

does that clear it up?

not once did i say hired actors would have to actually fly the planes. or into buildings. that would be stupid.

'actors' is kind of a generic term and makes it sound cheap. but the idea is the same.


We arguing symantics here. By actor, you mean stooge. When you say "no clue that it would actually be real. therefore not previously knowing that they were going to die" you are describing a stooge. I guess a stooge has to be as good actor as well.

the secrecy has to stop.

the secrecy has to stop. Once the curtain is liftes, the whole fraud gets obvious.

RE: Condi's "secret" meeting with Tenet...

“This is certainly something we would have wanted to know about,” he said, referring to the July 10, 2001, meeting.

“None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath, nor do we have any paper on this,” said Timothy J. Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former House member from Indiana. “I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.”

Mr. Woodward’s book, he said, raised the question of “why didn’t Condi Rice and George Tenet tell the 9/11 commission about that? They were obliged to do that and they didn’t.”


My only question is, why would Tenet admit this to Woodward, knowing it could come back to bite him?

Sound Familiar

"I would have told them, but they didn't ask me."

Lies Lies Lies it's all lies

never was so right...

There is no definitive proof

There is no definitive proof that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were "controlled demolitions".
Bombs can be going off in the basements, but ya still can have the top have caving in.
Also, this is one argument you'll be running in circles with in the mainstream joe blow and debunker crowd.

It's not "LIHOP" however, if it's known Pakistani ISI officials are controlling the whole operation as plenty of evidence has come out. If you know your "ally" is controlling those that plan to attack you, and you
let them in knowing this, and make sure it cant be prevented...thats not "letting it happen", thats mihop.

The bottom line is there is a coverup.

The air traffic controller interviews are authentic I believe. They posit, "how did they know when to turn the transponders off?" "how come the transponders came back on?"

People FAIL to realize that OF COURSE Osama/al Qaeda were involved in the main aspect of 9/11. That's the point of plausible deniability. They were just being controlled by Pakistani ISI and Saudi officials were complicit as well.

People who think there was no hijackings, no planes, fake planes, no Arabs involved, that Bush was involved, etc need to wake up.