Al Gore Comments on Bush's 'Catastrophic Failure[s]' Regarding 9/11

Gore: 'I would have heeded 9/11 warnings' -

In an interview with GQ Magazine, former Vice President Al Gore - who many Democrats believe should have been determined the winner in the 2000 presidential election against George Bush which the Supreme Court eventually decided - maintained that he would have "heeded the warnings" before the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, although he added that "no one can say that the 9-11 attack wouldn’t have occurred whoever was president."
"Now, I do wish, now that we have some distance from the events, and we have all this knowledge about what this administration did do, I certainly feel that I wish that it had been handled differently, and I do wish that I had somehow been able to prevent some of the catastrophic mistakes that were made," Gore said.
"It is inconceivable to me that Bush would read a warning as stark and as clear [voice angry now] as the one he received on August 6th of 2001, and, according to some of the new histories, he turned to the briefer and said, 'Well, you’ve covered your ass,'" Gore continued. "And never called a follow up meeting. Never made an inquiry. Never asked a single question. To this day, I don’t understand it."

Gore said that he thought it was "fair to say" that Bush "personally does in fact bear a measure of blame for not doing his job at a time when we really needed him to do his job."
"But dammit, whatever happened to the concept of accountability for catastrophic failure?" Gore said. "This administration has been by far the most incompetent, inept, and with more moral cowardice, and obsequiousness to their wealthy contributors, and obliviousness to the public interest of any administration in modern history, and probably in the entire history of the country!"

this is what Al Gore should

this is what Al Gore should say: "The reason they stole the presidency from me is because they knew that Bush would go along with Northwoods 2.0."

they knew what was coming and they couldnt risk Gore winning the presidency. hence the stolen election. in my opinion.

Seems unlikely. What if the

Seems unlikely. What if the election wasn't as close as what it was? What if Gore had won his own state of Tennesse? To link to S.Court to 9/11 is unfounded - although they should all be impeached for what they did.

are you kidding? its not

are you kidding? its not just about the Supreme Court first of all(do i really need to lay out all the tactics they used to steal the election? Jeb in Florida for starters.....), second, yes, they are only 9 people, and O'Connor showed her true colors when voting to install Bush. i personally dont think that the reason the Supreme Court installed him was because of 9/11, but it was obviously purely political and they(the 9/11 perps) knew if they could take it to the Supreme Court, they would win. basic numbers, there are more republicans on the court than dems.

actually OConnor showed her true colors...

when she is reported to have said "oh that's terrible" when the elction was originally called for Gore (see the book by Bugliosi)

While I think some justices (kof kof Scalia kof) probably knew more than they will ever say (kof who stopped the recount? kof Scalia kof) OConnor is probably a dupe who was just so sick of Clinton that she played along with the installation of Bush--who knows, really.

I think it's clear that 9/11 could only have been pulled off under a Bush regime, and that there was no way Gore was going to win that election regardless of how well he did in reality. Simplest reason? The global mafia has a lot more dirt on the Bushes than on Gore, who is relatively clean compared to the big boys of global corruption (Bush/Clinton/etc.)


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


not to mention that the Bush

not to mention that the Bush family has shown they have no problem commiting treasonous acts. i truly believe that H.W. is one of the most evil men to ever walk the earth.

"H.W. is one of the most

"H.W. is one of the most evil men to ever walk the earth."

Oh, yeah.

Now let me give you nightmares: Imagine Bush senior with actual charisma...a real life Frances Urquhart, he'd be. I wouldn't put it past him to still be in power somehow...

[Frances Urquhart--ficticous PM in House of Cards trilogy]

"Bugger this; I want a better world."



Absolutely, this milleniums

Absolutely, this milleniums fascist figure head. If you want an axis of evil Bush and his cronies easily out shines any goat herders.

HAIL the New World Order Emporer!

CCC-Media: Read, Watch, Think, Decide!

I don't read Chris linking the Supreme Courth to 9/11 directly

what are you talking about? The Supremes just went outside the law to insure that the Bush monkey "won" the election.

Yeah, 9/11 and all that has followed was set up in the 90's...

....behind the scenes....Bush was selected by the Republican Establishment early and everybody else (except McCain) backed away from running, unlike all Democrat presidential campaigns where you have a mulititude of candidates that get sorted through....McCain probably couldn't be counted on then either, when he started beating Bush, he had to be taken care of (smeared in this case) as well.

Bush was installed to make Daddy's friends (Military-Industrial Complex, Big Oil) rich through elective policies and contrived wars and at that, he's been a roaring "success".

Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, & Jim Webb all scoring major media points against the Cheerleader-in-Chief in the last 24 hours.

"Yeah, 9/11 and all that has

"Yeah, 9/11 and all that has followed was set up in the 90's..."

or earlier. Rumor has it a Kerouac book (is it "On the Road") features a character donning a turban-like headwrap and musing about crashing planes into NYC.


It wasn't on the road...haven't heard about that


that sounds like a rumour. I don't think thats in 'on the road'.
But anyway, why go back so far ? You can find 'references' if you so like in Hollywood movies of the 90's...(no, i dont mean to say by this that the movie industry planned 911;) )

"Northwoods 2.0"

I lke that.

The fact he knew of the

The fact he knew of the possibility of an attack is indisputable. US, India, Germany, France and other secret services had informed him, maybe fro a single source it could be accepted, but these warnings were printed in mainstream press prior to the attacks!! Not only that GW didn't even arrange a meeting with the security forces for months after the election, despite having a dosier on the terrorist threats.

Accountability only seems to refer to either being in office or out, but then his good friends at Diebold weren't gonna let him lose... Demand manually verifiable voting systems in your states and have independent exit polls!!!

CCC-Media: Read, Watch, Think, Decide!

In full article Gore asks

In full article Gore asks where the public outrage is when he talks the newly revealed Tenet meeting. Gee, Al, I don't know. Where were you? Why weren't you out there screaming? Like the average Joe has the voice that you do. Well, ITS NEVER TOO LATE TO START SCREAMING ABOUT IT NOW!!! 9/11 Truth should try and contact Gore to get him more involved. Were drowning under Bush now, Global Warming can wait a new months.

im not saying that i

im not saying that i disagree, but do you remember when the story first broke about the secret domestic spying? Gore was the only major Dem out there screaming his head off about it and how it was unconstitutional and illegal, and the media did as much as it could to make it a non-story. the story lasted a couple of days at the most and the MSM basically swept Gore under the rug. thats no excuse of course, but even if he made a big deal out of the Tenet story, the corporate MSM would put a clamp on it.

I personally think it was a

I personally think it was a politically opportune moment for Gore and he couldn't lose by speaking up. In fact he could have raised serious hell and produced a grassroots movement with his clout to fight the wiretapping. He didn't. So I think he was just covering his ass with his constituents. Gore was Clinton's VP and I think he knows damn well the games that our elites have been playing behind the scenes with regards to breaking down our rights.

Here's a quote I found from the Libertarian Party which would be wise for everyone to start considering( Forget supporting a single group because they can take advantage of you if you do so. You MUST be willing to support whoever represents you the best and only if they have integrity!!!)

It's not Left vs. Right, it's the State vs. YOU!!!!

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

He also saw what happened to

He also saw what happened to Dean and the over hyped "scream". Yeah, Dean's being a prat these days, but he had something for a while.

Agreed, no excuses, but he's calculating what he thinks he can win at. At least he can say he tried SOMETHING, unlike many people we could mention.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

The man who had the presidency stolen from him...

Gore has a very strong following in this country. He says he won't run because he can be more influential out of offce. That may be for some things, but certainly, if he was in office, he could gain a measure of revenge for 2000 and put the crooks in a Fed pen.

Power means responsibility

"Gore has a very strong following in this country. "

And a comcomitant responsibility to tell the truth, which he is not doing here. "Incompetent," "inept," "catastrophic failure" -- all LIES. The only good thing he says is -- "I still can't understand it." But that too is probably a lie -- it is simple to understand.

Gore is part of the problem.

Gore is part of the problem. You need to recognize this. The man has tremendous clout and he is not using it at all. Coming out every once in a while to make statements with out any real action is worthless to us citizens.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

'Well, you’ve covered your ass"

He said this?

This is the first time i am hearing this. I had always suspected that the August 8th presidential briefing was the result of the intelligence services covering their asses.

but here we have the president himself saying it?

you would think this would be bigger news.

is this a verified statement - or just Gore using poetic license?

no, Gore isnt the first to

no, Gore isnt the first to point this out. i forget where the qoute originally comes from, but it has been verified.

one more thing to add

to my film... (the damn thing is going to be 4 hours)

this, in my opinion, is incredibly incriminating. i'm kinda surprised that it has not been harped on more.

just for the record this statement seems LIHOP/MIHOP neutral. i believe they could have been "covering their asses" under either scenario.

Given that "Al Qaeda" is run by spooks . . .

can there really be a LIHOP?

I agree

and the ISI is their administrative arm

isn't it strange that Pakistan is considered to have one of the most radical islamic populations in the world - yet the USA didn't even blink when they acquired nukes?

you would think the USA would have flipped out seeing a country with a known strong radical islamic culture acquiring nukes. yet - we allowed it without even a whisper of protest. not even the neo-crazies protested. it didn't seem to concern Israel either - right?

the CIA created the ISI and the ISI created the Taliban and the Al Qaeda 'training camps.' That much we know. everything else is connect the dots.

Strange if you think USG opposes radical Islam

I think the U.S. promotes radical Islam to control the Middle East and Central Asia. I never thought about how one would expect Israel to react to Pakistan getting nukes- that's an interesting point.


Ron Suskind reported the "covering your ass" aspect of the August 6th PDB, I wrote this...

"David, look, let me just say it again: Had I known there was going to be an attack on America, I would have moved mountains to stop the attack. I would have done everything I can. My job is to protect the American people. And I asked the intelligence agency to analyze the data to tell me whether or not we faced a threat internally, like they thought we had faced a threat in other parts of the world. That's what the PDB request was. And had there been actionable intelligence, we would have moved on it." - George W. Bush, April 11th, 2004

As you can see, George W. Bush openly says he requested this Presidential Daily Briefing. Why would he request a PDB just so the CIA would have an alibi, or something to "cover" their "ass"?

"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."

What else has Ron Suskind reported on?

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.

"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,'" O'Neill said.

"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."


The above is something Al Gore once referenced in one of his speeches...

Excerpts From Al Gore's Speech At Georgetown University - October 2004


"We were told by the President that war was his last choice. It is now clear from the newly available evidence that it was always his first preference. His former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, confirmed that Iraq was Topic A at the very first meeting of the Bush National Security Council, just ten days after the inauguration. "It was about finding a way to do it, that was the tone of the President, saying, ‘Go find me a way to do this.'"

"Even as late as three months ago, when the growing chaos and violence in Iraq was obvious to anyone watching the television news, Bush went out of his way to demean the significance of a National Intelligence Estimate warning that his policy in Iraq was failing and events were spinning out of control. Bush described this rigorous and formal analysis as just guessing. If that's all the respect he has for reports given to him by the CIA, then perhaps it explains why he completely ignored the warning he received on August 6 th, 2001, that bin Laden was determined to attack our country. From all appearances, he never gave a second thought on that report until he finished reading My Pet Goat on September 11 th."

"It was in this context that the President himself was presented with a CIA report with the headline, more alarming and more pointed than any I saw in eight years I saw of daily CIA briefings: "bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S."

The only warnings of this nature that remotely resembled the one given to George Bush was about the so-called Millenium threats predicted for the end of the year 1999 and less-specific warnings about the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996. In both cases these warnings in the President's Daily Briefing were followed, immediately, the same day - by the beginning of urgent daily meetings in the White House of all of the agencies and offices involved in preparing our nation to prevent the threatened attack."

"But we now know, from a document uncovered by the New Yorker and dated just two weeks to the day after Bush's inauguration, that his National Security Counsel was ordered to "meld" its review of "operational policies toward rogue states" with the secretive Cheney Energy Task Force's "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields."

"In the spring of 2001, when Cheney issued the administration's national energy plan - the one devised in secret by corporations and lobbyist that he still refuses to name - it included a declaration that "the [Persian] Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy."

"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."

A long time ago... I wrote this...

They NEEDED It To Happen...

We sit here all day thinking of the most compelling piece of evidence that the Government was complicit in 9/11 when it's staring us RIGHT IN THE FACE.

What were our Government's intentions BEFORE 9/11?

Reporter Ron Suskind said that he received documents from "White House Insiders", including Paul O'Neill. The titles of those documents were as follows:

"Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq."
"Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts"

Paul O'Neill himself described a meeting that took place a few days after the first inauguration where "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."

What about Afghanistan? Would we have invaded Afghanistan had it not been for 9/11?

According to BBC's George Arney, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Just yesterday, Rep. Peter King said, "We would not have invaded Iraq without 9/11".

According to Bob Woodward's book, "Plan Of Attack", Paul Wolfowitz said, "The terrorist attacks of Sept 11 created an opportunity to strike."

So... were they hoping and praying that 9/11 would take place, or did they make it happen?

I've prayed my ass off before to a God I no longer believe in, but I can honestly say that a massive attack against the United States, in the timeframe that they specified, is a tad more than any God could give.

Ron Suskin & Paul O'Neill: CBS News
George Arney & Niaz Naik: BBC News
Rep. Peter King: Newsday
Paul Wolfowitz & Bob Woodward: Amazon Books

"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."



"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."

Its true

even we sometimes are too narrow in our questions.

For example:

David Ray Griffin makes great political hay out of the questions of NORAD's improbable timelines.

But shouldn't the larger question be:

forget why the ONE plane scrambled out of Massachusets did not reach its target. Shouldn't the airforce have scrambled jets over EVERY major city?

How did anyone know the scope of these attacks? How did they know San Francisco would not be hit next? Why wasn't EVERY airforce base in the country scrambling jets to defend the west coast also?

Think about it.

They tie us in knots talking about the minutia of timelines when the OBVIOUS truth is that the airforce did not react.

whether you believe MIHOP, LIHOP or just Criminal Negligence - THIS is a question any journalist could hang his hat on.

How did...

The Secret Service know that the President wouldn't be in any danger, in a highly publicized location, not 5 miles from an international airport at a time when kamikaze hijackers were crashing commercial airliners into buildings?

"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 are those

who believe that the 'criminal negligence' case should be pushed 1st and foremost - just to get the door open to investigations and subpoenas - and then everything else would unravel once the facts start to emerge.

although most in this movement start from a MIHOP position.

there is always that debate about approach.

most of us here do believe in MIHOP - but, it is a very hard sell when dealing with certain demographical groups.

that's why i appreciate both "Press for the Truth" and "911 Mysteries". each appeals to a different approach to demanding a reopening of the investigation. both make very good cases for doubting the official story - but from completely different angles.

I disagree with this statement...

although most in this movement start from a MIHOP position

If it's anything you learn by talking to complete strangers about 9/11, it is that they believe they "knew about it", and they "let it happen."

"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."

And from my own experience...

I know that I was "LIHOP" originally as well.

"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."

And then...

You get introduced to the unanswered questions they REFUSE to answer, and you start to think... why won't they answer these questions? Why on "God's Green Earth" won't they answer these questions?!? And then you start to read other things about how our Government works, etc... the Military Industrial Complex for example... and then you start to read things like "Operation Northwoods", etc... and then you start to find the inconsistencies, and omissions of the 9/11 Report... and then you look at the 9/11 Commission itself... and then you start to look at who benefitted from 9/11, and on and on and on... and you can only come to one conclusion...

"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."

Reported in June of this year

The "covered your ass" remark was reported in the review article at the following link, which ran in the Washington Post of June 20, 2006. See the third paragraph from the bottom.

Its true

that america promoted radical islam in a bid to turn its fury against the soviet union. after the collapse of the soviet union the remnants of this 'base' - the mujahadeen - al qaeda - had some usefullness in the heroin trade in afghanistan - and in the Bosnian golden triangle - and in creating the new and improved "boogiemen" of the 21st century.

the military industrial complex is an economy within an economny. but it must have enemies to stay viable. wars mean billions to this industry.

you've heard the phrase "guns and butter"? there is no money in butter.

You need to read...

Sibel's new piece...

"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."

One wonders...

Who would vote down a recommendation to read Sibel's latest piece?

"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."

Probably the same person who

Probably the same person who voted me down when I said one of pockybot's posts didn't make sense. Really, I had no idea if I agreed or disagreed because it was unedited giberish. But then the -1 didn't last.

Course it could be a mistake; once I accidently rated someone down when I meant up, but I fixed it. Or someone is here to quietly cause trouble. Many things are possible; it'll pass.

It didn't last, but here's a point anyway.

i put a negative on pocky

i put a negative on pocky too, but thats only because he says the same damn shit over and over. i dont know who would feel the need to put a negative on an innocuous post about Sibel Edmonds though. thats kind of wierd.

Our CIA has had it's dirty

Our CIA has had it's dirty fingers in drug trade all around the world. They have been documented as being involved in actually moving drugs and more recently (Contra scandal) documented as having set up the major drug players with others only to turn a blind eye.

Drugs need to be legalized. The drug war has failed and it supplies violent felons and our own CIA's blackops(we shouldn't support that shit because we wouldn't want other countries trying to subvert our republic- do unto others!). Individuals could get whatever drugs through government clinics and when they start going beyond casual use the clinics would work with them to get it in check or to quit altogether. We at least need the $$ and criminal element gone. It's an added problem when the profit margin is huge.

Also, any one who wants to get a better feel for the games our elite are playing with us should examine the drug laws and war and they will realize immediately that it is the perfect blueprint for the war on terror, a never ending battle against some "mysterious" forces of evil.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

I agree with most of what

I agree with most of what you say, but it gets worse:

The money from the drug trade is actually keeping the US economy afloat.

Move to local economies. Grow most food locally. Bring back manufacturing. It doesn't sound exciting or sexy but when the house of cards falls it'll keep us alive.

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

Pakistan plays ball with us

Pakistan plays ball with us that's why there wasn't a huge outrage. Iran doesn't play ball since they overthrew our dictator. As far as the UN can tell they aren't building nukes. Personally I'd trust the UN considering they got it right with IRAQ. The US media just drowned out the UN feedback on the lack of nukes with BUSH propaganda building up the tension.

We haven't hit Iran yet because it's gonna be a whooooooole nother ball game and I think the elites are trying to figure out the best route to do it.

If more people used alternative energy and lived in a self sufficient manner we wouldn't be in this god damned mess. What ever happened to the proud do-it-yourself, self-sufficient American attitude?? Now were happy if we have good credit ratings! Credit is debt and we are a parasitic nation. We MUST change this because our ship is sinking fast folks.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Pakistan plays ball with us?

Pakistan is extremely unstable. The president - Muushariff (spelling?)- has had multiple assassination attempts against his life. The Pakistan intelligence agency is reportedly split between loyalists and islamic extremists who supported the Taliban. It has been alleged that the head of the ISI wired money to one of the 9/11 hijackers.

Now is this sound like a country that you would want to allow to have nukes?

It all does not add up.

It is my belief (put on your tinfoil hats) that the real base of power in Pakistan is in fact NOT in the hands of a homegrown government naturally springing from the general population of Pakistan. That's just laughable. There would be no WAY we would allow them to have nukes if they were.

I believe Pakistan's military/intelligence services (which control everything) is in fact an arm of the United States military/intelligence community - a wholly own subsidiary of black-ops incorporated - a powerful offshoot of the multi-trillion dollar heroin trade and oil/natural gas interests in afghanistan. (money goes a long way in that part of the world)

It is my opinion that Pakistan is not "playing ball with us" - they ARE us.

i even have my doubts that Pakistan even has actual nuclear tipped missiles. those tests they conducted in the 1990s may have been just a show of force designed and executed by the USA.

It sounds like you and

It sounds like you and whitey basically agree but are taking it from different angles. Remember when talking about a nation state you are NOT talking about the will of the people--you are talking about the will and actions of the elites and whoever owns/ influences them. This confusion can lead to some really DUMB arguments among allies.

Whitey says Pakistan plays ball with the US.
You say Pakistan IS the US, that is, a client state of the US.

You have basically described the mechanism of the actions Whitey is observing.

In other words the two of you are in agreement--and I agree with both of you.

But thank you far sharing the relevant info--always good to keep the ISI connection fresh.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

It actually seems to have

It actually seems to have been "your ass is covered". A google search turns up lots of quotes of it.


In the recent book by Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Ron Suskind called "The One Percent Doctrine", Bush's response to the CIA briefer was, "All right ... You've covered your ass, now."

"Never asked a single question.To this day, I don’t understand "

Hey Al, we know the answer why!


We know why he ain't confessin to no 911truth either.
NWO Player, playin his part. Singin his song.

To watch this adminstration playing the acting role of government. Has convinced me that. That none of these SOBs are sincere about nothing. Fuck Al Gore!
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Is a statement like this really beneficial?

What do you mean, "you don't understand"? Of course you understand, Mr. Gore, but you choose to lie with the words "incompetent" and "inept" and "moral cowardice." Like that of Ray McGovern, Al Gore's comfort zone perpetuates the cover up.

i think it is beneficial

because it continues to shine light on the subject.

so few politicians are even asking about this anymore.

in a way, he is showing how inexplicable it is that the president took no action. by saying he "does not understand it" kinda indicates that the president actions (or lach thereof)is inexplicable.

If Al Gore had said "this is

If Al Gore had said "this is inexplicable and requires Congressional investigation" that would be one thing, as it stands his statements aren't enough, especially when his party has put impeachement "off the table."

well yeah

but its better than nothing. it at least keeps the subject alive. at least i learned something i didn't know before.

but Bush is a lame duck in the truest sense of the term. even the neo-cons are running for cover. he lost his base and now - like a failed mafia boss - he is vulnerable to regime rotation. it could get very ugly.

i think they could make a real example out of this guy.

or not. they could just let him slide for 2 years.

or even give him a nice war with Iran for Christmas to redeem himself. i wish i knew.

Wakey wakey eggs n bakey

The new congress doesn't mean shit. The executive branch is not going to be stopped from doing blackops until they are called out on it and hung out to dry. This congress is not going to hold Bush accountable because it's made up of members who by and large voted to support and fund Bush's policies. Actions speak louder than words.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

true, but we are talking about mass murder

As MLK said, there comes a time when silence is complicity. I consider Gore's statement to be silence, given what he must know and is not saying.

I think that's overstating

I think that's overstating it by a mile. There is no way for you to determine what Al Gore knows on this subject. None.

Actually I've rethought this

Actually I've rethought this and take it back.

Actually, you were right

I don't know what Gore knows, but I assume he knows a lot. Even if he knows no more than me, that is enough for him to at least call for a serious investigation. Because he is not using his stature in the pursuit of justice, he is complicit.

Maybe he DOES know?

I wonder how someone like Al Gore (and Bill Clinton for that matter) who are so aware of things on many levels, would not have looked at some of the amazing evidence available, or had it shown to them? Is Al Gore afraid that mentioning the possibity that the Bush Regime conspired to create the 9/11 attacks would brand him a fringe lunatic?

I get the idea that many do know what we, and millions of others, have come to know. It's like they're dancing around the 'pink elephant' in the room.

of COURSE they all know!

Al Gore ain't dumb, and neither was Bubba. Bush has the excuse that he was probably in on it--he may well have been fooled if he hadn't. But of course people of normal intelligence at that level know what's going on. They are just scared shitless of ending up with concrete shoes somewhere. We are baby stepping towards the truth--our job is to walk behind them shoving them in turn...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Of course they know

I would assume there is a zero % chance that Gore and Clinton DON'T know the truth.

The percentage of average americans who know the truth is pretty high at this point. I would assume that the percentage is even HIGHER among those in government.

Its kinda like gays in the republican party. everyone knows they are there - but no one dares say anything about it. its a conspiracy of silence. a conspiracy of cowards.

and with weapons grade made-in-the-USA anthrax showing up in certain Senator's mailboxes.... they perhaps do not have the incentive to speak up?

look what happened to Curt Weldon. The FBI raided his home and he lost his re-election bid.

Look what happened to Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer. His career and reputation is ruined.

For politicians like Gore who still hope to have a comeback in politics, the idea of stepping forward on something as HUGE as this is unthinkable. He would be instantly vilafied by BOTH parties.

I totally disagree about

I totally disagree about Gore and Clinton. These people are powerful because they are very good at NOT knowing the truth. The same applies to major media figures.

you mean

like they are in total denial?

because i would assume an ex-president would know what the standard protocols are for air defense emergencies - and whether they were followed or not. I would also assume they would know what the protocols are for the secret service to react.

But, i would agree that politicians are in the business of turning a blind eye towards things.

As soon as I posted saying

As soon as I posted saying that Gore didn't know I rethought it. He probably wasn't informed, but he probably does know that, at the very least, Air Defense should have responded.

My bad.

Of course he has an idea of

Of course he has an idea of what's happening! Keep in mind that ex heads of state have many ties to intelligence agencies, etc which keep them filled in on things. You don't think someone like poppa Bush just gave up all that juicy info he used to get when he left the CIA & Presidency. Same thing with Clinton/Gore.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Gore should know better. He

Gore should know better. He was next in line to the Commander in Chief for 8 BLOODY YEARS! If he doesn't know something went very wrong with the air-defense on 9-1, then he's just stupid. But that can't be. Same is true for Bill Clinton. But they're not going to voice their misgivings aloud. That makes them culpable, to my way of thinking.

silence = betrayal

seems like all these people want to just put twigs on the fire - but no one wants to blow the whistle and throw gasoline on it.

the 911 commissioners themselves said that they considered criminal charges against NORAD. another twig.

Bob Woodward's book showing foreknowledge - another twig.

Fahrenheit 911 showing the president's inaction on 9/11 - another twig

Richard Clarke's book - another twig

Curt Weldon and Able Danger - another twig

we will be able to roast marshmellows soon


Here you have media heavy weights speaking around the edges of the truth. I sometimes wonder if this is the same as the whistleblowers putting in tell tell signs in photos. A quiet whisper of "A Scream For Help!". They just need alot of ordinary americas to cover their politicial back before the real truth can come forth.

To speak any plainer would be equilvent to cutting off your nose to despite your face.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Clinton is part of the gang

he actually gave a speech telling people that "the terrorists" found material about the WTC on the internet and that helped them engineer the collapse by fire melting the steel - the message is then basically, we all have to go back to the stone age, because one of us might use modern technology for evil purposes.

And then recently Gingrich (see demanding to "redefine freedom of speech" for the sake of being safer from terrorists using the internet. Not only is he fully ignoring the message of U.S. voters from Nov.7th to finally stop playing the terrorism-card, but he seems to think they can press ahead with the neocon agenda.

Bubba is just like a son to Poppy

The Clintons are false flag terrorists. Anyone who has looked into the OKC Bombing (for starters) understands this.

Here is Clinton's speech:

The relative part comes about 40% of the way through when he starts talking about "interdependence", I believe...

He manages to reinforce the OV, smear the Internet, and say that traditional American freedoms (of movement, in this case, I think...) all in one sentence.
You've got to admit the guy is skillful....

Totally gratuitous reference meant to reinforce the official myth with those kids and their parents on graduation day. And, sets up attacks on the Internet and the Bill of Rights, for later.

See for a story today on how the government is moving against file-sharing on the Internet.

This is all meaningless

It really doesn't matter what Gore said, or what Kerry said or what Clinton said. Where were they 5 years ago. This is all just political rhetoric.

they're not all complicit but they are all cowards

none of them are real in any significant sense.

the best most politicians of the last five years can hope for in the future is to avoid jail.

they will go down in history as the people who almost let America be destroyed by their greed, stupidity, and cowardice. the lamest generation, without a doubt.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I agree Real Truther

Not complicit, but guilt by campaign contribution. None of them will go out on a limb...unless, of course, one of them was Paul Wellstone.
They know the machine called the electoral process, to speak out is to derail a political career and then a lucrative private one after that.
Basically whoever the root of power may be, that is what they are most afraid of. We need to make them be afraid of us.

Counterpunch on 911: no inside job!

This is merely a

This is merely a recapitulation of the NIST report with some typical smears at the beginning.

Two days after the collapse

Two days after the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, Zdenek P. Bazant, a civil engineering professor at Northwestern University, publicized his theory of the collapse initiation. His conjectures about loosened fire insulation and heated steel losing strength survived the subsequent scrutiny by NIST. However, NIST rejected Bazant's proposed mechanism for the initiation of the collapse, referred to subsequently as the "pancake model" or "pancaking." Because of its early appearance on the scene, Bazant's model was widely circulated. Critics of NIST and the "official" story will point to the divergence of NIST's conclusions from Bazant's, four years earlier, as an indication of ignorance, confusion --or worse --complicity and cover-up on the part of the "government" people.

are we still buying this?.... two days and 20 million later... the story is the same?

your little article is going to get eaten alive here..... If anyone would be willing to read this..... the intro to "nut jobs" is especially poignant to the understanding of your so called science....

Keep writing your hit pieces.... we all see the mad scramble to maintain your shallow story.

JJJ...what evidence do you

JJJ...what evidence do you have that counters the evidence presented in this paper?

You say it's wrong...why? How? What do you have that proves otherwise...other than "it must have been bombs and look at this picture and free-fall is impossible without explosions?" It's been proven over and over again that the speed at which these buildings fell is very possible without explosions. Why can't you except the evidence that proves this instead of denying it and looking for evidence that doesn't exist to disprove it?

It doesn't make sense. You all want truth...but when you get it, you don't like it.

You people are idiots. Sorry to attack...but I just don't understand you at all.

You should look into it yourself

Stephen Jones and David Ray Griffin have done extensive writing on the similarities shared between the "collapses" and controlled demolition. There were at least 11, including the pyroclastic clouds, the speeds, the molten steel.

What does this article say about molten steel? Pyroclastic clouds?

Nothing, because they can't account for the tiny micron-sized particles, created by detonation charges. And this is just one of 11 or more features.

This article takes a specific angle and idea, and tries to spin it using twisting formulas and attacking language.

I read it to be objective, but it doesn't offer anything. And frankly, articles that strike an abusive or sarcastic tone, belitting anyone who could "possibly believe" that they were controlled demolitions, don't score many points with me.

9-11 researchers are trying to be objective, those who are "debunking" them resort to ad hominem attacks IN THEIR OWN ARTICLES! That is nuts, from an academic standpoint. It's just not done!

So this is a credibility issue. This article isn't worth the digital screen it's displayed on!

A very well written retort,

A very well written retort, Monsieur.

I appreciate your calculated arguement and logic regarding the flavor of the article that was posted.

Many would have yelled, screamed, awarded negative points (whatever those are anyway) and wouldn't have taken the time to be thorough.

I Thank you.

i believe the murder of Paul

i believe the murder of Paul Wellstone was meant to send a message. it wasnt just to take him out, it was to make it clear to the rest of the congress and senate that a new regime was in town and they better play ball.

Don't forget Cynthia

Don't forget Cynthia McKinney--she was called a bitch for repeatedly demanding " what did they know, and when did they know it," about 911.

Probably the only reason she lived through all that tot was she didn't own a small aircraft...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

i will never forget Cynthia

i will never forget Cynthia McKinney. even people in the 9/11 movement dont fully realize how much of a treasure that woman was. her speech at Project Censored a couple years back was one of the best i have ever heard. period. they didnt have to kill her, it was enough to just have her own party turn against her in collusion with the media and the republicans to sink her career. plus she didnt have as much power as Wellstone(or Carnahan for that matter, if you believe he was killed). but she shoved a capitol hill officer right? so i guess that makes her crazy. simple as that i guess. :sigh:

The Obvious:

Zbiginiew Brzininski brags in his 1997 book about instigating and using, kind of really creating modern Islamic extremism and terrorist fervency in 1979 to "give it to the Russians". He then talks about
the need for the US, now that Russia was no longer in command, to dominate Eurasia...and that with abig external pearl harbor attack from Eurasia hitting the US, theyd have their pretext.

To me, hes one of these uber globalist masterminds like David Rockefeller, Kissinger, etc who I believe all this war and major terrorism can be linked back to.

Now, I do agree Bush's backers had to make sure he would get in office no matter what.

But I do not like being called a shill for merely asking "How could the Bush regime have planned 9/11"?
When all indications were that the plot began in earnest in 1997? Now I dont buy the "9/11 was all KSM/Hamburg Cell/Osama" as they want us to believe. Randy Glass' revelations and other stuff indicate a high level network. Question is, what high level group controls al Qaeda...and if its the ISI, who controls them?

There really has been no smoking gun to say "aha, this neocon official totally was in on planning 9/11, or helped make it happen in the 99-2000 crucial planning period".
Ya have WF-199I, shoot down rewrite, saudi embassy/VISA thing, Able Danger...but what
solid proof do people h ave? Qui bono? Oh certainly...Just 5 years later, Im sitll looking for answers.


we do not have to answer any of these questions ourselves

they do

there is enough prima facie evidence of criminal wrongdoing - whether it ultimately proves to be MIHOP or LIHOP or criminal negligence - to demand an investigation.

Think of it in terms of a murder. The police investigate the crime and fail to prosecute. But they neglect to take into account KEY evidence. This evidence is still viable and can be taken to a judge to hand down indictments. It is not double-jeopardy until - like the OJ case - an actual trial is held.

"Question is, what high

"Question is, what high level group controls al Qaeda...and if its the ISI, who controls them?"

CIA. Okay, it's more complicated, but basically that's it.

"There really has been no smoking gun to say "aha, this neocon official totally was in on planning 9/11,"

But we do have the President and the Vice President trying to stop the investigation on grounds "it would draw resources away from fighting terror."

That is tampering with a MURDER INVESTIGATION. That makes them accesories after the fact to mass murder.

Still looking for answers? Don't seem to be looking too hard, chum.

Impeachement. Accountability. A better world.

The partisan line is a

The partisan line is a fascade, Gore would have done the same thing in another way. The geo-politcal highway has been laid and anyone who thinks that one party or another is going to protect their interests, while still controlled and managed by the bankers and professional politicians are dilluding themselves. At best there would have been a delay until they were manipulated into the same actions through an acceptable party principle.

Replacing the federal reserve and the state and federal "representatives" is the only way to make any significant difference, and to do that start by ensuring you only vote for a representative who will remove electronic voting!

CCC-Media: Read, Watch, Think - Decide!


A google news search for

Gore 9/11 warnings

yielded just 8 results. I love the media!

It's funny how a search for

Bush 9/11 warnings

yields 20 times more results. Who is Al Gore anyway? Oh he's just the legitimate president that's all... he's not newsworthy. lol