Robert Charles-Dunne

The ex-Fug was Ed Sanders. Good book. [Coined the unforgettable term "vomit-eyed trolls of Satan."] Despite being primarily about Son Of Sam, also recommended for its overlapping content is The Ultimate Evil by Maury Terry.

For a meticulous dissection of GWB's failure to serve his full military obligation, and why, please see: http://www.glcq.com/ Additional context can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/my...te_b_65222.html and: http://www.russbaker.com/Why%20Bush%20Left%20Texas.htm One notes in reading from the above that the IBM Selectric "superscript" issue was a contrivance, as demonstrated by other contemporaneous documents from the period. For all intents and purposes, Bush was designated a deserter ["non-locatee"] by the US military.

What do the esteemed members here make of the following, a recent review contained in Canada's newspaper of record, The Globe & Mail? Has anyone yet had the chance to read the book being reviewed? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...1%2C000+days%22 HISTORY When Britannia ruled no more DAVID A. WILSON September 15, 2007 THE LAST THOUSAND DAYS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE By Peter Clarke Penguin/Allen Lane 'Here we are, in a damp little island that once ruled the world," a friend of mine remarked recently as we landed at Heathrow Airport. Well, not quite the whole world, but a fair chunk of it. In this stimulating book, University of Cambridge historian Peter Clarke (now living on Pender Island, B.C.) places the microscope on what he sees as the pivotal period in Britain's transition from imperial power to damp little island. It begins during the Second World War, with Winston Churchill making stirring, morale-boosting speeches about fighting for the British Empire and Commonwealth, and about "victory at all costs." And it ends in August, 1947, with Clement Attlee's Labour government implementing its exit strategies for Palestine and for India, and with the United States well on the way to becoming the world's most powerful empire, even as it pretended that it wasn't an empire at all. How did this happen? For Britain, Clarke argues, the cost of victory was the loss of its empire. British survival during the war depended on U.S. intervention. But this was anything but an alliance of equals. The United States was the senior economic and military partner, and although Americans had a vested interest in helping Britain to defeat Hitler, they were not fighting to save the British Empire. And as the conflict continued, Britain's impressive relative contribution was dwarfed by the absolute scale of the American and Russian war effort. At the Teheran conference in 1943, a Soviet officer asked a member of the British delegation how many German divisions had fought at El Alamein, one of the great British victories in the war. Fifteen, came the exaggerated reply. "In the Soviet army, we do not call that a battle," he was told. "To us, that is a skirmish." Britain was in no position to challenge the Soviet Union after the war, even though Churchill toyed with the idea in his Operation Unthinkable. Having gone to war ostensibly to protect Poland from Nazi aggression, Britain could do nothing to save it from Soviet aggression; ironically, those who had opposed appeasement in 1939 were vulnerable to the same charge in 1945-46, as it became clear that Stalin was turning Poland into a satellite state. But the book's main focus is on Anglo-American relations, with the relationship between Churchill and Roosevelt taking centre stage. And here, Clarke really gets into his myth-busting stride. Despite all the talk about the unity of the English-speaking peoples, the "special relationship" and the Lend-Lease program as "the most unsordid act in history," there were severe strains in the Anglo-American alliance. Lend-Lease had more to do with enlightened U.S. self-interest than any sentimental attachment to fellow English-speakers. U.S. politicians wanted to curtail British influence in the Mediterranean. And there were deep divisions between Britain and the United States over military strategy in Europe, with Montgomery wanting a concentrated assault and Eisenhower preferring a broad front; the Americans, as senior partners, got their way. Military relations were even worse in the Far East, where General Joseph (Vinegar Joe) Stilwell described his British allies as "pig-xxxxers." As we see British power leaking away at the conferences of the Big Three, another myth starts to crack - that of Churchill as a brilliant war leader. In one crucial sense, of course, he was precisely that; no one could reach or rival his inspirational power during the bleakest days of the war. But the diaries on which Clarke draws demonstrate that Churchill drove his senior advisers to distraction. Close up, he appeared long on style and short on substance; his cabinet ministers frequently complained that he was "talking damned nonsense," that he was "confused" about military strategy, and that he winged his way through important meetings without reading his briefing notes. The most damning assessment came from Alan Brooke, the chief of the Imperial General Staff, who worked with Churchill on virtually a daily basis: "He knows no details, has only got half the picture in his mind, talks absurdities and makes my blood boil to listen to his nonsense." Yet even Brooke felt the magnetic attraction of Churchill's character. At their last official meeting, just before Churchill left office, Brooke was close to tears, and subsequently thanked God that "such supermen exist on this Earth." If most Britons believed, rightly or wrongly, that Churchill was the right man for the war, a majority believed that he was the wrong man for the peace. After Churchill came Clement Attlee's Labour government, which presided over an economically exhausted country. The war left Britain strapped for cash, deeply in debt and increasingly unable to meet its international and imperial commitments. In Palestine, Britain decided to hand over its mandate to the United Nations, rather than incur the continuing hostility of U.S.-led Zionists and such terrorist organizations as Menachem Begin's Irgun. In India, the strategic and economic imperatives of British imperialism no longer applied; the strongest case for staying was the moral one that withdrawal would culminate in an ethno-religious bloodbath. Stafford Cripps, the chancellor of the exchequer, worked long and hard to bring Hindus and Muslims to an agreement, without success. Clarke's description of the negotiations is one of the most riveting parts of the book. It is also one of the most controversial; Clarke makes a strong case that Gandhi bore much of the responsibility for the failure to reach an accommodation between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. Independence was coming anyway; the British cabinet had decided upon that. But by putting his high-minded principles over potential consequences, Clarke argues, Gandhi inadvertently helped to ensure that independence would be accompanied by civil war and partition. Getting out of the Middle East was one thing; getting out of India was another altogether. With India gone, with the Soviet Union dominating eastern Europe and with the United States on the rise, Britain's days as an imperial power were effectively over, in Clarke's view; disengagement from Africa and elsewhere was the drawn-out coda to a melody that had already been played out - hence the "last thousand days" title of the book. It is, however, a title that misleads. In this respect, to borrow one of Clarke's own metaphors, he overplays his hand. The British Empire, after all, was about much more than India and Palestine, and it took much longer than 1,000 days to fall - as Clarke himself admits in the preface. A thousand, of course, has a nice millennial ring to it, and is good for marketing; the publishers are doubtless hoping for a replay of Paris 1919, and it's no coincidence that Margaret MacMillan wrote the blurb on the back. Academics might wince and critics might carp, but I rather hope that the strategy works. This is a damn fine book, and deserves to be widely read, as long as its limitations are kept in mind. David A. Wilson is a professor of history and Celtic studies at the University of Toronto.

For a partial list of family values hypocrites, see: http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/ For a recent explanation of what afflicts them, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1017546,00.html

The genius of 9/11 was mostly in its conception; once it had been planned it would not have that difficult to carry out. Four months after 9/11 a Florida teenager with minimal flight training was able to steal a Cessna fly it over an air force base and crash it into a building in Tampa. Planes have previously been hijacked by crazy people soaked in flammable liquid or with fake bombs, the “muscle hijackers” were trained in hand to hand combat. Getting a car bomb close enough to an iconic target to do serious damage wouldn’t be so easy as you imagine. It seems that by raising the Florida teenager story, you are undermining your own contention that security in the US is now perfect, and hence the rationale for no additional AQ attacks on US soil. LEN: I’m not into getting involved in semantic battles, increased security is a reasonable explanation for later attacks not occurring, someone (especially a Canadian) praying to a rock isn’t. After the US started x-raying carry on baggage and obliging passengers to go through metal detectors hijackings of scheduled passenger virtually came to a halt in the US. In the few incidents that happened afterwards the perpetrators used non-traditional weapons (bombs, flammable liquids, box cutters, knives etc. Can we assume causality or do you think some one prayed to their pet rock? I don’t know of any cases of potential hijackers being caught by airport security. However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the security measures were put in place but didn’t because it was more difficult. RC-D: Those without a predisposition might also reasonably assume that no such incidents have taken place because no such attempts were made. Had any such attempts been made, would DHS, et al, not rightly trumpet such apprehensions far and wide as proof that their increased security precautions were paying great dividens in maintaining public safety? That you've seen no such report, I submit, is proof there have been no such attempts. But, again, I've never held that a secondary attack had to be against aircraft. I just find it incredible that no such attack of any kind has been perpetrated. My last sentence came out convoluted but you should have been able to make out my point. It should have read: “However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the new security measures were put in place didn’t because it became more difficult”. I.e. increased security has a deterrent effect. I don’t think anyone can point out a hijacking that was prevented by metal detectors and x-ray machines at airports but the steep decline of such incidents after they were put into use is strongly suggestive they prevented such attacks. That may or may not explain an absence of attacks using airplanes; it provides no basis to believe that security is now so fool-proof as to make all attacks against any targets impossible. Your fallback position seems to be that AQ is only interested in the targets that you would have them prefer. A most peculiar method of prosecuting a war against the Great Satan, don't you think? From post 165 LEN: Strawman I didn’t use the incompetence theory regarding the memo and only used it as a secondary possibility forr the 1st WTC attack. RC-D: Well, of course. Otherwise, you might actually have to confront the recurring pattern of curious negligence, incompetence or [feel free to use your own terminology] to rationalize how prior warnings are ignored, and after the fact, denied ever being made or received. Unfortunately for those doing the denying, those warnings are, after all, demonstrable, as was the case when Condi Rice said it was unthinkable that AQ would use airplanes to attack the US, only to have Richard Ben Veniste produce precisely such a document, provided to the President more than a month before the attacks, which document warned of precisely such an event. That this disconnect doesn't trouble you may not surprise those who read your output here, but some of us are troubled by such disclosures, for it illustrates that criminal negligence, at best, was committed by the man whose central reason for being, by his own proclamation, is keeping the US secure. I don’t know if incompetence is the correct charge, of course with hindsight it’s easy to say what should have been done. The Bush administration did show a distinct disinterest in terrorism probably because they had other priories [iraq and the rest of the axis of evil, raping the economy etc] some of the errors took place during the Clinton administration if it was a conspiracy it was a very complex one. Just as the US military showed a "distinct disinterest" in intercepting hijacked planes even after it was apparent they had been hijacked and would be used as weapons. Just as the Bush administration showed a "distinct disinterest" in launching an investigation into what transpired on that day, and a year later relented only because a failure to do so was inexplicable to even Bush's staunchest supporters. Just as those who wish to embrace the easiest answers of that Commission's Report still display a "distinct disinterest" in tackling the multiple failures, errors and omissions contained in that Report. "Distinct disinterest" seems rather pervasive among some when dealing with this topic. One wonders why that might be. Surely it cannot be that those in a position of power have reason to fear a comprehensive official investigation and the revelations that might ensue? Of course not; that's just more groundless "conspiracy theory," isn't it? For a shockingly revealing overview of just how poorly this event was investigated, one might benefit from reading an interview with Lee Hamilton, conducted by a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation talking head: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html - In the 30’s the French failed to learn the lesson of the previous war and placed fortification only along their boarder with Germany but in 1940 just as the had done in WWI the Germans attacked through the low countries. - If I’m not mistaken Chamberlain really seemed to believe Hitler would keep his word. - Stalin refused to believe intelligence report Germany was going to attack in 1941 - Hitler refuse to believe the allies were going to land at Normandy (rather than other landing points) - In 1973 the Israelis missed signs of an impending Arab attack Were the above “inside jobs” I have never suggested that imcompetence doesn't exist, or that it cannot explain some things. I have never suggested that nobody in world history has ever been wrong and lived to regret it. But if you are arguing that imcompetence and error are the only explanations that can rationalize what transpired in regard to Nine-One-One, I can only point out that your wilful refusal to consider other alternatives is matched only by your credulity in accepting what you've been told by a Commander In Chief who has been wrong about just about everything he's ever said. You may find his explanations credible, which is your right, but surely you can understand why not everyone is quite so sanguine about these things as you seem to be? One should also point out that in none of the above-cited cases is it demonstrable that Chamberlain, Stalin, Hitler or Israel, or their courtiers, gained any personal, political or corporate profit as a result of their errors. To the contrary, these errors came at a grave cost to those who made them. The same cannot be said for Bush and his courtiers. LEN: The “new Pearl Harbor” was only tied to one goal, introducing new weapons systems namely “Global missile defenses”, “Control of space and cyberspace” and “Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces” (i.e. more modern conventional weapons) (pg. 63). Unless you cite credible evidence that after 9/11 such new weapons were introduced at a faster rate than could have been expected if the attacks hadn’t occurred, you’ve lost your case. Keep in mind that we would have expected defense spending to go up during a neo-con Republican administration anyway and many of the PNAC people were in positions to implement their goals under the puppet like Bush. See also if you can dig up any references in that paper to invading or overthrowing the governments of any governments especially in that region. The "happy coincidence" exists only in the minds of truthers because there is no evidence the attacks help implement any of the goals stated in the paper especially those in the “new Pearl Harbor chapter” RC-D: I take it that "truther" is a new pejorative term, much like "conspiracy buff," employed by those who cannot refute the message and are thus reduced to mocking the messenger? No “truther” is the preferred term for most people who are part of the “truth movement” to describe themselves. Is taking mock offense an excuse for not addressing my points? I mocked no one and replied to your point. As already stated elsewhere in this thread, I read the document in precisely the way Ron Ecker has already interpreted. You are free to disagree, but it is not as though this point hasn't already been addressed. Post 166 I edited for brevity the posts were getting too long and confusing as it is. I asked for a reference for your claim that members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the US without being questioned by the FBI days after 9/11. You have so far fail to produce one, no amount of smoke will hide that. Since I've never stated otherwise, I am unsure what you expect to be provided. I suggested that Bush's solicitude toward the Bin Ladens was inexplicable, irrespective of when they were allowed to leave [assuming the 911 Commission is correct on this point, which is an unsafe assumption.] Had the extended family of Hirohito been residing in the US at the time of the attack upon Pearl Harbor, would Roosevelt have granted them safe passage back to Japan? One cannot know with certainty, but it surely seems rather odd. Particularly given the long-standing business and political ties between the Bushes and Bin Ladens. Had Roosevelt enjoyed a convivial and profitable relationship with the Hirohito family before and after Pearl Harbor, and allowed them egress from the US soon after Pearl Harbor, would this not have raised questions about Roosevelt's true allegiances? It should have done, just as these more recent events are not just fair game for questioning, but a requirement incumbent upon anyone truly interested in what transpired. RC-D: You place great faith in the 9/11 Report, enough to cite its findings as contained on 911.myths.com. I posted the Hopsicker material to demstrate that while US airspace was closed, Saudis - less important to Bush than the Bin Ladens - received preferential treatment, attributed [by some of those involved in the flight] to the White House. FAA denied it, FBI denied it, the White House denied it, yet the Commission accepted it as a fact, and then called it benign. That still isn’t evidence in support of your original claim 1) You provided the Commission's assurance that there was nothing unusual about allowing the Bin Ladens to leave the country, despite the fact that all interested parties - White House, FBI, FAA, et al - had repeatedly lied about that event. 2) In order to demonstrate just how invalid the Commission's conclusions could be, I provided chapter and verse on a virtually identical event in which all interested parties - the White House, FBI, FAA, et al - likewise lied, only to have the Commission compound the lie by declaring it benign, which we know to be false. 3) You have apparently decided that the two are in no way similar and hence dismissed it as irrelevant. I trust that the parallels between the two events, which I have demonstrated, are not likewise lost upon others here. LEN: I haven’t flown out of Canada since I was a teenager decades ago but when flying out of the US even post 9/11 there is no ID by security officials. Names and ID’s only checked by airline employees at check-in and boarding for someone with an e-ticket and no checked bags not even the former. Are you saying that the Canadians would not have instructed the airlines to not allow anyone named bin-Laden fly overseas? RC-D: Unsure about the double negative, but... Given the ID of OBL by the US by that time, it is entirely possible. Certainly, we've detained a half dozen 'suspects' via the use of "security certificates," some for years in solitary confinement, without charge, without trail, without conviction. We have collaborated with the US in the forced and illegal deportation of Canadian citizens to Middle Eastern countries where they were held, tortured and spurned by the Canadian consular officials responsible for their well being in those countries. I realize when people think of Canada, it is hard to conjure the image of an overly zealous and efficient security apparatus, but we do have one. And ours isn't always perfect, but it usually errs on the side of proactive, unConstitutional behaviour, more often than not. You seem to have taken offense at a sentence on the 911myths page based on your misreading. I doubt the US would have had any legal basis for preventing the bin Ladens from leaving the US once airspace was open unless they had evidence against them. Canada would have had even less basis for holding them. Being detained for simply being a relative of someone suspected of committed a crime is something I doubt even the neo-cons would dream of seriously proposing. I can assure you that the Canadian goverment would have been particularly proactive in this regard. Do recall that US authorities initially announced that some of the 911 hijackers had snuck into the US from Canada [completely false], and intimated that such would have never happened were Canadian authorities not so lax [also false, for it is the responsiblility of US Customs to prevent the entry of such persons, not the responsibility of Canada Customs to prevent the exit of same.] Do you really think that after having been falsely branded as lax on terrorism [a recurring false charge against Canada, for those who care], Canadian authorities would have allowed the escape of anyone named Bin Laden, after OBL had been identified as the 911 culprit, with "no questions asked?" If so, I can assure you otherwise, and have already illustrated the wholly illegal lengths to which Canada has already gone in that regard. Those who think Canada is 'soft' on terrorism invoke little more than the South Park hypothesis: "Blame Canada." LEN: To be quite frank it sounds to me like you are retroactively changing your claim which was that “US forces at Tora Bora [were] ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?” Firing upon (which they did do) and attacking themselves (which they didn’t) are very different things. Actually what Berstein says he wanted was for US troops to block escape routes, presumably even he wanted Afghans to do in and “do the dirty work”. RC-D: Bernstein was the man on the ground spearheading the get-OBL effort. He was chosen for a reason. When he called for air power, he got it. When he had sufficient reason to believe that OBL had been located, based on information that he - the guy in charge - found credible, he called for the US military to provide the ground troops necessary to be certain that OBL was killed or captured. Suddenly, according to you, the military began to question the judgment of the man selected to spearhead the get-OBL asset. You seem to think that this can be rationally explained. I see only irrational, contradictory alibis provided for why the US failed to go after its quarry during its single- best [known] opportunity. He had always gotten what he wanted from Frank? Does that include ground troops in difficult terrain? Can you back that up? Bombing is an entirely different matter, the risk of casualties is much reduced. Do you have any evidence the decision went any higher than Franks who was the US’s military commander in Afghanistan? US ground troops were only sparingly used there almost all the fighting was done by Afghans. Again, I find it troubling that the single greatest opportunity, in the extant record, to kill or capture OBL was foregone. You do not, as is your right. Forum members can discern for themselves which they find more persuasive. LEN: Wow you sound like a true neo-con ‘chicken hawk’ armchair warrior! I imagine that you, like I, have no military experience. From the comfort of your bedroom (or where ever your computer is) far from any front in Canada as an academic exercise it easy to talk tough like that. I imagine humanitarian concerns aside needlessly putting troops in the line of fire is bad for morale [did the Canadians ever forgive Mountbatten (sp?)?]. I imagine Franks had to consider the following 1) the reliability of the information, don’t forget he didn’t know the linguist 2) the increase in the likelihood of capturing OBL (if indeed he was there) by sending in US troops 3) the potential casualties from sending US troops. Did he make the wrong decision? Was he unfit for command? I don’t think so but I’m not sure because I don’t have enough information and I’m not qualified to make such a judgment, the same I imagine could be said about you. RC-D: Imagine whatever you wish. You have informed us that you have no time in military service. You are on less safe ground to make unsupportable assumptions about the military background of others here. Shall I take you failure to state otherwise as an indication that I was right about your similar lack of experience? I don’t know of any members here who commanded troops during combat, in any case no one else has commented on this issue. Again, this insistence upon credentials is both inconsistent and spurious, because it certainly doesn't preclude you from offering your opinion on the topic, irrespective of your stated lack of experience. Were I to demonstrate my military background, you would say serving in the Canadian forces is not comparable to service in the US military. Were I to say that I had served in UN peacekeeping duties and was responsible for tracking enemy combatants in Bosnia, you would say that the terrain there was not comparable to that of Afghanistan, etc., etc. This is a red herring on your part, designed merely to deny others a right to state their opinion, while allowing you to state yours. [by the way, although my avatar photo is small and hard to discern, it does depict me in Canadian military uniform, from which you are free to draw whatever inferences you choose. It is as irrelevant as insisting that only professional assassins should be allowed to post their thoughts on the Kennedy assassination.] As for being a 'true neo-con chicken hawk,' it has always been my feeling that when troops are placed in harm's way, it should be for a legitimate purpose, the achievement of which might make the loss of those lives worthwhile. It has always been my feeling that they are to be used solely as a last resort, and that when they are sent in, they are given all the tools and latitude to complete their task, with the least risk to them that is humanly possible to achieve. I agree What I see here is a group of men dropped into enemy terrain, and when they located their target, their judgement was suddenly found worthy of questioning. When they found the needle in the haystack, there was suddenly diminished interest in capturing the needle. Most odd You say this was sudden but haven’t produce evidence of what happened earlier. You think it “odd” but you don’t have any expertise on the subject, Franks certainly did. Unless you can find someone with a comparable level of expertise to question his decision you don’t have much of a case. Once you have done that you need to produce evidence the “sudden change” was due to an order from higher up the chain of command. Your insistence upon having expertise in order to justify an opinion clearly doesn't preclude you from having and stating an opinion, despite your own lack of same. See above. LEN: I never denied that Bush is a corrupt, lying, crazy A-hole but like Palast I can believe that but still think there was no evidence he had foreknowledge of the attacks and think “inside job” theories nonsensical. RC-D: An "inside job" didn't and doesn't require Bush's knowledge. Any "inside job," of whatever description, needs only people powerful enough to orchestrate and manipulate their underlings, the semi-justifiable use of secrecy laws, a sufficient motive, and the audacity to think they could execute it without getting caught. When it comes to evidence of foreknowledge, if such exists in a demonstrable way, those who never seek it are unlikely to find it. Would you include Palast as one of “those who never seek” “evidence of foreknowledge” was he being misleading when he indicated he had? Especially in light of his later comments that he thinks 9/11 conspiracy theories are bogus I would assume that when he said they didn’t find any evidence of Bush having foreknowledge he meant the USG do you think if he had found evidence that for example people in the CIA knew he wouldn’t have said so? Without knowing the lengths to which Palast probed the issue, how can one tell what he has or hasn't sought? This is precisely why it is imperative that such matters be thoroughly and comprehensively probed by an impartial, independent investigative body. That has not been done. Those who think otherwise are welcome to read about the impediments placed in the way of the 911 Commission by those responsible for testifying before it and the various errors and omissions its Report contained. It may be instructive to note that the Commission itself discussed laying criminal charges against some of those who did testify, an example of which can be found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101300.html For just one example of the multiple mysteries never plumbed by the 911 Commission, I recommend reading: http://www.gameshout.com/news/what_about_t...article9499.htm

Mark Stapleton has had Len Colby accurately pegged for quite some time now. All but the most obdurate or illiterate will have noted the inconsistency in Len's approach, as illustrated by Michael Hogan. Some might dare to consider it hypocrisy. Len insists that his opponents should provide expert opinions from those who are sufficiently credentialled, but doesn't hesitate to profer the opinions of those who are not. [With all due respect to Tink Thompson, a pioneer of the JFK mystery, his qualifications to pass judgement on Nine-One-One are no greater than most of those here, making it particularly odd that Len - who insists repeatedly upon credentials - should cite him. Tink may have spent years at the Ground Zero site, but since all physical evidence has long since been made to disappear or exported elsewhere, this doesn't appear to be a particular advantage to either Tink or Len.] But, those of us who have been doggedly pursuing the JFK mystery are well familiar with the techniques employed by the likes of Len, for we have seen them many times before. When opponents do provide expert opinions from those who bear the requisite credentials, those credentials are questioned or dismissed as inadequate. [Dr. Gary Aguilar is unqualified to render and opinion about head wounds because his medical specialty is different; Dr. John Lattimer, a urologist, was uniquely qualified to discuss head wounds.] Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test. When the credentials are above such questioning, the experts are nevertheless dismissed because if they are incorrect about one supposition or conclusion, then all of their conclusions must be dismissed. [Len feels no self-consciousness in embracing conclusions by the 911 Commission, despite its shoddy track record in being demonstrably wrong about - or deliberately ignoring - many things; somehow this doesn't impeach their ability to be correct about other things.] Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test. When all else fails in impugning the expert opinions of those who are sufficiently credentialled, then there is always some kind of "moral turpitude" invoked to disqualify those expert opinions. Len is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't pass this test. It's an old routine. And it's grown no more convincing by repetition alone. Those interested in the opinions of skeptics with credentials might start by visiting: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Wow you sound like a true neo-con ‘chicken hawk’ armchair warrior! I imagine that you, like I, have no military experience. From the comfort of your bedroom (or where ever your computer is) far from any front in Canada as an academic exercise it easy to talk tough like that. I imagine humanitarian concerns aside needlessly putting troops in the line of fire is bad for morale [did the Canadians ever forgive Mountbatten (sp?)?]. I imagine Franks had to consider the following 1) the reliability of the information, don’t forget he didn’t know the linguist 2) the increase in the likelihood of capturing OBL (if indeed he was there) by sending in US troops 3) the potential casualties from sending US troops. Did he make the wrong decision? Was he unfit for command? I don’t think so but I’m not sure because I don’t have enough information and I’m not qualified to make such a judgment, the same I imagine could be said about you. RC-D: Imagine whatever you wish. You have informed us that you have no time in military service. You are on less safe ground to make unsupportable assumptions about the military background of others here. As for being a 'true neo-con chicken hawk,' it has always been my feeling that when troops are placed in harm's way, it should be for a legitimate purpose, the achievement of which might make the loss of those lives worthwhile. It has always been my feeling that they are to be used solely as a last resort, and that when they are sent in, they are given all the tools and latitude to complete their task, with the least risk to them that is humanly possible to achieve. What I see here is a group of men dropped into enemy terrain, and when they located their target, their judgement was suddenly found worthy of questioning. When they found the needle in the haystack, there was suddenly diminished interest in capturing the needle. Most odd ME (Len): He wrote: "Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, let me tell you that we found no evidence — none, zero, no kidding — that George Bush knew about Al Qaeda’s plan to attack on September 11. Indeed, the grim joke at BBC is that anyone accusing George Bush of knowing anything at all must have solid evidence. This is not a story of what George Bush knew but rather of his very-unfunny ignorance. And it was not stupidity, but policy: no asking Saudis uncomfortable questions about their paying off roving packs of killers, especially when those Saudis are so generous to Bush family businesses." It seems you did precisely what he didn’t want his reader to. He’s saying this was done for political and personal financial reasons. ROBERT: Re: your fine distinction that Bush was motivated by personal greed and personal political considerations, and hence wasn't solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, you seem that have it somewhat backwards. Bush was solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, and this seems to haved earned Bush a pass from you, so long as it was motivated by personal gain. To me, it is largely irrelevant for which corrupt reasons that is true, only that it is. . I never denied that Bush is a corrupt, lying, crazy A-hole but like Palast I can believe that but still think there was no evidence he had foreknowledge of the attacks and think “inside job” theories nonsensical. RC-D: An "inside job" didn't and doesn't require Bush's knowledge. Any "inside job," of whatever description, needs only people powerful enough to orchestrate and manipulate their underlings, the semi-justifiable use of secrecy laws, a sufficient motive, and the audacity to think they could execute it without getting caught. When it comes to evidence of foreknowledge, if such exists in a demonstrable way, those who never seek it are unlikely to find it. Sorry that should have read “Nothing in the article indicates he called the FBI off of OBL himself. Nor is there evidence that having done what Palast though should have been done would have prevented the attack”

ME (Len): Did you actually look at my link? It didn’t dispute that Saudis, even bin-Ladens, were flown out of the US only the contention that they weren’t interviewed first. The site you referenced stipulates several things that remain less than certain, which is only naturally since their source material comes from the 9/11 Commission whose credility is less than stellar, as we'll soon see, and a few that are demonstrably untrue. To wit: "Many sites are a little coy about when this flight occurred, but we'll tell you; it was September the 20th. Not such a rush, really, and no, US airspace was not closed." Technically, this is true, so far as it goes, but its placatory tone is a false one. What it fails to address, which is why I directed your attention to Hopsicker's site, is that such a flight containing Saudis did take place while there was an FAA embargo on air travel, albeit in this instance a domestic one. And, as was initially the case with the Bin Laden flights departing the US, it was originally denied by FBI, FAA and the White House, none of whom seemed capable of discovering what they did not seek. Reading Hopsicker's piece illustrates as much. 911myths. com also contends: "The family members weren't simply allowed to leave, either. The 9/11 commission pointed out: "Twenty-two of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity... The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft". How does one square this with FBI's initial, wholly contradictory claims that no such flights had ever taken place? How does one interview passengers who never flew? Either FBI's initial denials were wrong, or the Commission's Report is, for those two opposing "facts" cannot both be true. I understand your failure to acknowledge the disconnect; so long as you accept the most recent statement - the 9/11 Commission's - as true, you are untroubled by whatever preceded it, no matter how contrary. Wow what a convoluted paragraph! The flights the 9/11 C and 911myths were referring to were the ones that took the bin Laden’s out of the US not the one that took Saudi VIPs from Florida to Kentucky. RC-D: One cannot help but note that you've excised the pertinent portions from Hopsicker's site that illustrate precisely the point I was making. So, at the risk of boring everyone gormless, allow me to resurrect them: When the FBI was insisting the Saudi boys in Tampa never flew to Lexington, KY, on Sept 13, the FBI documents state that if there was a phantom flight: "Such a flight would have been in violation of the FAA's flight ban." Also, that: "FAA reports that full flight restrictions were in effect on 9/13/2001." But when the 9/11 Commission Report admits the flight actually did happen, there's a catch: "The flight definitely took place, and there is nothing improper about it" because "both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open." And: "At the time this charter flight took off, both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open." You place great faith in the 9/11 Report, enough to cite its findings as contained on 911.myths.com. I posted the Hopsicker material to demstrate that while US airspace was closed, Saudis - less important to Bush than the Bin Ladens - received preferential treatment, attributed [by some of those involved in the flight] to the White House. FAA denied it, FBI denied it, the White House denied it, yet the Commission accepted it as a fact, and then called it benign. So, when allegations were first raised about Bin Ladens leaving the country were first raised, the FAA denied it, the FBI denied it, the White House denied it, only to later grudgingly ackowledge that the flights did take place, just not while US airspace was closed, and not without most of them being interviewed by FBI. The internal inconsistencies of each individual event, as reflected by government actions and documents, were stunning in their sweep. If one cannot know the truth about one such instance [FBI vs. 911 Commission vs. the Hopsicker material], how much credence is one prepared to give any of the interested parties on another matter, virtually identical in all respects save one: the Bin Laden flights would be considered even more unseemly, creating an even greater benefit from ensuring the issue is not plumbed. Bear in mind when you assess all of the things rationalized by the interested parties that several other matters, of a similar nature, remain unsatisfactorily unrationalized, unresolved, unsolved. If the Commission gives a blithe assurance that "At the time this charter flight took off, both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open," which we know to be false, what other blithe assurances on other similar issues are equally false? These are questions you dismiss as though unworthy of your attention. I would have thought any concerned patriot would be asking the hard questions, not accepting the easy answers. If you read with more care you would have realized he meant “no questions at all” from the FBI. RC-D: It that's what he "meant," can we not assume that's what would have been written? I haven’t flown out of Canada since I was a teenager decades ago but when flying out of the US even post 9/11 there is no ID by security officials. Names and ID’s only checked by airline employees at check-in and boarding for someone with an e-ticket and no checked bags not even the former. Are you saying that the Canadians would not have instructed the airlines to not allow anyone named bin-Laden fly overseas? RC-D: Unsure about the double negative, but... Given the ID of OBL by the US by that time, it is entirely possible. Certainly, we've detained a half dozen 'suspects' via the use of "security certificates," some for years in solitary confinement, without charge, without trail, without conviction. We have collaborated with the US in the forced and illegal deportation of Canadian citizens to Middle Eastern countries where they were held, tortured and spurned by the Canadian consular officials responsible for their wellbeing in those countries. I realize when people think of Canada, it is hard to conjure the image of an overly zealous and efficient security apparatus, but we do have one. And ours isn't always perfect, but it usually errs on the side of proactive, unConstitutional behaviour, more often than not. ROBERT: A simple reference to what I wrote illustrates that this isn't quite so: "It should disturb you as much as it does me that we have known since October 5, 2001, when it was reported by the Tampa Tribune, that at least one such flight did take place in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized - despite repeated denials by Bush, the FBI, the FAA, et al that such had ever occurred - only to later be grudgingly acknowledged." I said nothing about a foreign flight, or the Bin Ladens in referencing the Hopsicker site. "...in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized..." If this was a mere oversight, or benign, why did the White House, FAA and FBI all feel compelled to lie about it? This is a fact that Hopsicker makes clear: You seemed to be citing Hopsicker in support of your claim that “the Buxxxxes…allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event” as evidence by your ‘convoluted’ paragraph above. Do you have any evidence in support of this claim? Richard Clarke a fierce critic of the Bush regime says it’s not true. RC-D: I was, but not in the way you infer. See above for parallel. ME (Len): Can you provide a citation for this claim? ROBERT: Sure. You may recall that John Kerry repeatedly made this claim, presumably with some basis in fact, while running in the '04 election. It would be a simple matter to cynically denounce such claims as political posturing by a Presidential candidate at the expense of the incumbent. Were it not for the subsequently published book "Jawbreaker" [Dec. '05], written by the CIA point man in charge of seeking out OBL at Tora Bora. CIA initially stalled vetting his book, which had to be submitted to the Agency prior to publication as is common in all such cases, then ensured that some of the book's most damning allegations were excised. Those interested in the meat of the matter might benefit from reading what can be found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/ A transcript of a January '06 Paula Zahn interview on CNN with the book's CIA-operative author, Gary Bernstein, can be found midway down the page at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/06/pzn.01.html Much that corroborates Bernstein's version of events can be found in "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan" by Gary Schroen, also a Jawbreaker veteran, and Robert Baer has been no wallflower in recounting his own bitter experiences trying motivate a serious hunt for Bin Laden. ME (Len): Once again none of your linked sources back your claim. Did you read them? Bernstein was interviewed by David Ensor not Paula Zahn. ROBERT: You are correct. I referenced Paula Zahn because it was her show, but it was Ensor who filed the report. ME (Len): You said “US forces at Tora Bora [had] been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing.” 1) The US DID fire on the al-Queda positions, from the CNN transcript you cited: DAVID ENSOR, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (VOICE OVER): In late November of 2001, the CIA sent a four-man CIA military team to hunt Osama bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan. With donkeys and ten Afghans for security, the team scaled a 14,000 foot peak overlooking al Qaeda's mountain retreat at Tora Bora. From there the men used lasers to call in massive firepower from the air. GARY BERNSTEIN, AUTHOR, "JAWBREAKER": And they rained down death and destruction on al Qaeda up in those mountains. The first 56 hours alone. 2) Bernstein didn’t complain about the lack of bombing but, like Kerry, the failure to use US as opposed to Afghan ground troops, ROBERT: You are right, Bernstein didn't "complain about a lack of bombing." I never said he did. What he did complain about was that he knew where OBL was, requested the necessary troops to fire upon and clean out those positions, and his request was overridden [admittedly, I could have phrased my point more cogently]: To be quite frank it sounds to me like you are retroactively changing your claim which was that “US forces at Tora Bora [were] ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?” Firing upon (which they did do) and attacking themselves (which they didn’t) are very different things. Actually what Berstein says he wanted was for US troops to block escape routes, presumably even he wanted Afghans to do in and “do the dirty work”. RC-D: Bernstein was the man on the ground spearheading the get-OBL effort. He was chosen for a reason. When he called for air power, he got it. When he had sufficient reason to believe that OBL had been located, based on information that he - the guy in charge - found credible, he called for the US military to provide the ground troops necessary to be certain that OBL was killed or captured. Suddenly, according to you, the military began to question the judgement of the man selected to spearhead the get-OBL asset. You seem to think that this can be rationally explained. I see only irrational, contradictory alibis provided for why the US failed to go after its quarry during its single- best [known] opportunity. It also sounds to me like you conflated Tora Bora with a fictional incident during the Clinton administration from the “the Path to 9/11” in which “National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, is portrayed as unwilling to approve a plan to take out a surrounded Osama bin Laden.” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9...used_by_Clinton ]. Even a conservative Clinton administration critic said this was inacurate “the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.” [ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911 ] ” RC-D: Since I've never watched the show in question, and know the allegations about Berger to be spurious, I can assure that no such conflation has occurred.

ME(Len): I agree with you that the Bush administration (and to a lesser extent the Clinton administration) was grossly negligent but once again incompetence doesn’t = conspiracy. The memo contained little intelligence that could have been acted on nothing indicated such attacks were imminent. ROBERT: Precisely how many times must one swallow the "incompetence" line before it demonstably ceases to be incompetence, requiring you to entertain more unsavoury possibilities? Just how credulous would you have your fellow citizens be? Such a blase uncritical credulity is not an attribute when attempting to divine the truth in such matters. Strawman I didn’t use the incompetence theory regarding the memo and only used it as a secondary possibility forr the 1st WTC attack. RC-D: Well, of course. Otherwise, you might actually have to confront the recurring pattern of curious negligence, incompetence or [feel free to use your own terminology] to rationalize how prior warnings are ignored, and after the fact, denied ever being made or received. Unfortunately for those doing the denying, those warnings are, after all, demonstrable, as was the case when Condi Rice said it was unthinkable that AQ would use airplanes to attack the US, only to have Richard Ben Veniste produce precisely such a document, provided to the President more than a month before the attacks, which document warned of precisely such an event. That this disconnect doesn't trouble you may not surprise those who read your output here, but some of us are troubled by such disclosures, for it illustrates that criminal negligence, at best, was committed by the man whose central reason for being, by his own proclamation, is keeping the US secure. ME (Len): Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper) but for “the Department of Defense [to] move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems.” ME (Len): All due respect to Ron aside he misquoted the paper so maybe you’d like to address it or admit error. ROBERT: Sorry, but no dice. I read the documentation in precisely the way Ron does, and I notice he's added some further comments, with which I also concur. You are free to disagree. However, irrespective of the goal in mind - territorial hegemony or development of new weapons or whatever else is inferred - the fact remains that precisely the scenario that they identified as speeding the achievement of their goals is what transpired. Precisely how many times must one swallow the "happy coincidence" line before it demonstably ceases to be coincidence, requiring you to entertain more unsavoury possibilities? The “new Pearl Harbor” was only tied to one goal, introducing new weapons systems namely “Global missile defenses”, “Control of space and cyberspace” and “Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces” (i.e. more modern conventional weapons) (pg. 63). Unless you cite credible evidence that after 9/11 such new weapons were introduced at a faster rate than could have been expected if the attacks hadn’t occurred, you’ve lost your case. Keep in mind that we would have expected defense spending to go up during a neo-con Republican administration anyway and many of the PNAC people were in positions to implement their goals under the puppet like Bush. See also if you can dig up any references in that paper to invading or overthrowing the governments of any governments especially in that region. The "happy coincidence" exists only in the minds of truthers because there is no evidence the attacks help implement any of the goals stated in the paper especially those in the “new Pearl Harbor chapter” RC-D: I take it that "truther" is a new pejorative term, much like "conspiracy buff," employed by those who cannot refute the message and are thus reduced to mocking the messenger?

ME (Len): Perhaps that’s because they’ve been unable to. It took them years to pull off 9/11, there first ever attack on the US when they had safe haven and the US had “its pants down” now that they/he is on the run and US security has tightened doing so again would not be easy. ME (Len): I doubt either of us can answer that authoritatively. A car bomb in front of a post office or mall probably would not too difficult assuming they could 1) still put cells together in the US with the know how 2) obtain bomb making materials without being detected but hard targets wouldn’t be so easy. ROBERT: Insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere have little trouble managing this, in an environment more heavily secured by military than anywhere in the US. You’re joking right? Iraq is in the middle of virtual civil war the US only has effective control over a small part of Baghdad and few other limited areas where car bomb attacks are very rare. Iraq is a country with 100’s of millions of people with motive to want to attack the US or other Iraqis, military stockpiles were looted after Saddam’s fall etc etc. RC-D: You mis-read my point, though not for the first time. You may be correct that "the US only has effective control over a small part of Baghdad," and yet the insurgents still manage to detonate car bombs there, and kill just about whomever they please, including the 21 [if memory serves] merchants who chatted with John McCain during his visit there. Given that the US has, as you acknowledge, "effective control" of that turf via security, how is it that AQ are incapable of committing similar acts in the US, where bomb-making materials are freely available for purchase and where security is nowhere near so tight? Recently, Bush visited Anbar Province to demonstrate how well things are going there, thanks to his having cut a deal with the local Sunni sheik, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, who is now dead, along with a couple of his bodyguards, less than a fortnight later. As I said from the outset here, it need not be another Nine-One-One, but people should be highly suspicious when the first shot fired is also the last. Herb White outlined a series of possible actions AQ could undertake, were they truly a threat, none of which would be terribly hard to pull off. Yet, thus far, nada, zip, zero, zilch. You may take this as a sign that security is now near-perfect, but it doesn't prevent college or high school students from taking arms to school and wiping out dozens. I think you give far too much credit to DHS, et al, and are failing to consider that the threat level is nowhere near what has been touted. As I already pointed out OBL lost his safe haven since 9/11 he also lost at lot of his top people i.e his operational capacity is way below what it was before even then it took years to set up but now the US is paying more attention. He could believe he accomplished his goals he: humiliated the US struck three iconic targets, destroyed two did serious damage to the US and especially NYC economies became a folk hero to millions of Muslims possibly provoked the US into a blunderous overreaction etc etc. You believe that he should have tried to strike the US again but have offered zero evidence to support that claim. You believe he should have been content to set off car bombs in front of soft targets despite that not seeming to be his style (Where has he ever done this outside of the Arab world?). RC-D: Thank you. You've inadvertently helped to make my point. Previous to Nine-One-One, car bombs, truck bombs and boat bombs were all "he" seemed capable of detonating. Nine-One-One was a quantum leap forward in both style and ability. Yet since that time, "he" cannot manage even a car bomb on US soil. I find that curious, almost as much as your lack of curiosity for why that might be. You also ignore that he seems to concentrating his energies elsewhere at the moment, Iraq. As for Bush. One of the great failures of his administration was that he jumped into the war in Iraq before stabilizing Afghanistan? Might they have been able to catch OBL if troos hadn’t been diverted away? He now seems to be in a part of Pakistan not under the control of the central government. The Pakistani military government seems to be to weak to go after Al-Queda there themselves and sending in US troops would probably lead to it’s downfall. RC-D: It looks as though Musharraf's days are numbered in any case. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../International/ One thing that would certainly earn him credit around the globe, and some at home, is the capture of Public Enemy Number One. Then again, it doesn't seem as though the US is placing any particular pressure upon Musharraf to find Public Enemy Number One, so perhaps OBL's place on that pecking order has been downgraded within the Bush administration. It sure seems that way, since Bush announced more than four years ago that he doesn't even "think" about him much any more. Again, a most curious negligence is taking place. Your willingness to not care any more than Bush does is puzzling. ME (Len): I rarely agree with Tim but such an assertion is silly, is it really your contention that increased: security at airports, boarder crossings and other “hard targets”/critical locations; surveillance of suspects; coordination between the FBI, CIA etc and the other steps taken post 9/11 have as much effect as praying to your rock? ROBERT: As did Tim, you are purposefully missing the key point - "Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture." Unless one can point to repeated examples of intended AQ strikes on US soil being foiled by DHS, et al, one must surmise there is no evidence upon which to believe AQ exhibits such intent. If you can provide such examples, I'm all ears. I’m not into getting involved in semantic battles, increased security is a reasonable explanation for later attacks not occurring, someone (especially a Canadian) praying to a rock isn’t. After the US started x-raying carry on baggage and obliging passengers to go through metal detectors hijackings of scheduled passenger virtually came to a halt in the US. In the few incidents that happened afterwards the perpetrators used non-traditional weapons (bombs, flammable liquids, box cutters, knives etc. Can we assume causality or do you think some one prayed to their pet rock? I don’t know of any cases of potential hijackers being caught by airport security. However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the security measures were put in place but didn’t because it was more difficult. RC-D: Those without a predisposition might also reasonably assume that no such incidents have taken place because no such attempts were made. Had any such attempts been made, would DHS, et al, not rightly trumpet such apprehensions far and wide as proof that their increased security precautions were paying great dividens in maintaining public safety? That you've seen no such report, I submit, is proof there have been no such attempts. But, again, I've never held that a secondary attack had to be against aircraft. I just find it incredible that no such attack of any kind has been perpetrated. ME (Len): I’ve heard that claimed but see little supporting evidence. All there is are tapes made by the informant after the fact in which he claimed he had told them about the attack ahead of time and could have switched the explosives but it seems they had basically “disowned” him before the bombing. ROBERT: From which you draw what inference? That they were correct to do so? If so, the result militates in the opposite direction. That they were incorrect to do so? Then why did they? Because a man whom they had previously thought credible, a man whom they insinuated into the alleged cell and whose actions they had directed, suddenly became unworthy of their continued confidence precisely at the time he allegedly warned them the plot was about to reach fruition? What an odd way to conduct such affairs. ME (Len): 1. IIRC it is far from certain he had told them only that he claimed after the fact he had. Apperently they lost faith in him he was a paid informer not an agent. 2. Even if they did screw up that does prove conspiracy. ROBERT: I realize you meant the opposite of what you have typed here, but I prefer what you wrote to what you intended. OK “Even if they did screw up that does NOT prove conspiracy” happy now? RC-D: My "happiness" is hardly the issue here, Len. Peter Lance (as quoted by Michael Hogan) who extensively researched the incident wrote the following in the preface of his book “Triple Cross”: “So Ronnie Bucca, who was in an army reserve intelligence detachment, got himself assigned to the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center (DIAC) at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington. There, as he began to examine the intel, he learned that the FBI actually had an informant inside the bombing cell months before the blast, BUT AFTER A FALLING-OUT WITH A BUREAU SUPERVISOR, HE'D WITHDRAWN.” Note - Michael also quoted another passage which indicated “the FBI had…prior warnings that a bomb or bombs would go off in New York City the FBI” http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117649 RC-D: Sorry, Len, but I cannot fathom the intent behind the final sentence, so will reserve comment for now.

Did you actually look at my link? It didn’t dispute that Saudis, even bin-Ladens, were flown out of the US only the contention that they weren’t interviewed first. The site you referenced stipulates several things that remain less than certain, which is only naturally since their source material comes from the 9/11 Commission whose credility is less than stellar, as we'll soon see, and a few that are demonstrably untrue. To wit: "Many sites are a little coy about when this flight occurred, but we'll tell you; it was September the 20th. Not such a rush, really, and no, US airspace was not closed." Technically, this is true, so far as it goes, but its placatory tone is a false one. What it fails to address, which is why I directed your attention to Hopsicker's site, is that such a flight containing Saudis did take place while there was an FAA embargo on air travel, albeit in this instance a domestic one. And, as was initially the case with the Bin Laden flights departing the US, it was originally denied by FBI, FAA and the White House, none of whom seemed capable of discovering what they did not seek. Reading Hopsicker's piece illustrates as much. 911myths. com also contends: "The family members weren't simply allowed to leave, either. The 9/11 commission pointed out: "Twenty-two of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity... The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft". How does one square this with FBI's initial, wholly contradictory claims that no such flights had ever taken place? How does one interview passengers who never flew? Either FBI's initial denials were wrong, or the Commission's Report is, for those two opposing "facts" cannot both be true. I understand your failure to acknowledge the disconnect; so long as you accept the most recent statement - the 9/11 Commission's - as true, you are untroubled by whatever preceded it, no matter how contrary. Your site also asserts: "Had they driven across the border to Canada instead, they could have flown home from there with no questions at all." This is wholly untrue. It presupposes that Canadian air travel security protocols were so lax that persons could come and go as they pleased, with "no questions at all." Only somebody who's never flown in or out of my country would say so silly a thing. Our system may be less draconian than some others, but we do have a system, and thus far it's worked with reasonable efficiency. Hopsicker doesn’t document what you claim according to the Tampa Tribune article: "On Sept 13, 2001, a private Lear jet flew three young Saudi men—a Saudi Arabian prince, the son of the Saudi Arabian defense minister, and the some of a top Saudi army commander—from the Raytheon Terminal at Tampa International Airport to Lexington, Kentucky." So it was a domestic flight and there was no mention of members of the Bin-Laden family being on it. Try again. A simple reference to what I wrote illustrates that this isn't quite so: "It should disturb you as much as it does me that we have known since October 5, 2001, when it was reported by the Tampa Tribune, that at least one such flight did take place in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized - despite repeated denials by Bush, the FBI, the FAA, et al that such had ever occurred - only to later be grudgingly acknowledged." I said nothing about a foreign flight, or the Bin Ladens in referencing the Hopsicker site. "...in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized..." If this was a mere oversight, or benign, why did the White House, FAA and FBI all feel compelled to lie about it? This is a fact that Hopsicker makes clear: When the FBI was insisting the Saudi boys in Tampa never flew to Lexington, KY, on Sept 13, the FBI documents state that if there was a phantom flight: "Such a flight would have been in violation of the FAA's flight ban." Also, that: "FAA reports that full flight restrictions were in effect on 9/13/2001." But when the 9/11 Commission Report admits the flight actually did happen, there's a catch: "The flight definitely took place, and there is nothing improper about it" because "both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open." And: "At the time this charter flight took off, both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open." However, the key point is the one regarding Bush administration solicitude, and this 'phantom flight' was just one such example. Again, from Hopsicker: Today we only know about the phantom flight from Tampa because a former Tampa police officer, Dan Grossi, and a retired FBI Agent, Manuel Perez, provided security on the flight from Tampa to Lexington KY. And then, when asked about it, they told the truth. In October of 2001, Grossi confirmed to the Tampa Tribune that he had been on the flight, and added that he “was told clearance came from the White House after the Saudi royal family asked a favor from former President Bush.” Perez agreed with Grossi’s assessment. "They got the approval somewhere," Perez is quoted in the Vanity Fair article telling reporter Craig Unger. "It must have come from the highest levels of government." Can you provide a citation for this claim? Sure. You may recall that John Kerry repeatedly made this claim, presumably with some basis in fact, while running in the '04 election. It would be a simple matter to cynically denounce such claims as political posturing by a Presidential candidate at the expense of the incumbent. Were it not for the subsequently published book "Jawbreaker" [Dec. '05], written by the CIA point man in charge of seeking out OBL at Tora Bora. CIA initially stalled vetting his book, which had to be submitted to the Agency prior to publication as is common in all such cases, then ensured that some of the book's most damning allegations were excised. Those interested in the meat of the matter might benefit from reading what can be found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/ A transcript of a January '06 Paula Zahn interview on CNN with the book's CIA-operative author, Gary Bernstein, can be found midway down the page at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/06/pzn.01.html Much that corroborates Bernstein's version of events can be found in "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan" by Gary Schroen, also a Jawbreaker veteran, and Robert Baer has been no wallflower in recounting his own bitter experiences trying motivate a serious hunt for Bin Laden. < Once again none of your linked sources back your claim. Did you read them? Bernstein was interviewed by David Ensor not Paula Zahn. You are correct. I referenced Paula Zahn because it was her show, but it was Ensor who filed the report. You said “US forces at Tora Bora [had] been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing.” 1) The US DID fire on the al-Queda positions, from the CNN transcript you cited: DAVID ENSOR, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (VOICE OVER): In late November of 2001, the CIA sent a four-man CIA military team to hunt Osama bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan. With donkeys and ten Afghans for security, the team scaled a 14,000 foot peak overlooking al Qaeda's mountain retreat at Tora Bora. From there the men used lasers to call in massive firepower from the air. GARY BERNSTEIN, AUTHOR, "JAWBREAKER": And they rained down death and destruction on al Qaeda up in those mountains. The first 56 hours alone. 2) Bernstein didn’t complain about the lack of bombing but, like Kerry, the failure to use US as opposed to Afghan ground troops, You are right, Bernstein didn't "complain about a lack of bombing." I never said he did. What he did complain about was that he knew where OBL was, requested the necessary troops to fire upon and clean out those positions, and his request was overridden [admittedly, I could have phrased my point more cogently]: ENSOR: One of the team's leaders radioed Gary Bernstein, their CIA boss in Kabul, the U.S. should send troops to make sure bin Laden did not get away somehow. Bernstein pleaded the case. (on-camera): How many times and in what way did you ask for American forces? BERNSTEIN: Well, I did it in writing, and then I did it orally with the senior military commanders on the ground. ENSOR (voice over): But the troops to block the Pakistani border were not sent. 3) That decision even according to Bernstein was made by General Franks a career military officer who’d been a general well before Bush jr. came to power not one of his neo-con politicos. Again according to Bernstein, Franks wasn’t sure OBL was in the area and though the risk was too high. He told Ensor: “We had an opportunity. It would have required a bit more acceptance of risk in that case.” And told MSNBC: “Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."” The evidence that OBL was there is less than rock solid: BERNSTEIN: …my linguist was listening to him on the radio, on that un-encrypted radio. And the linguist I had listened to Osama bin Laden's voice four years straight. Any time we wanted someone to translate something it was him. ENSOR: So he knew for sure it was him? BERNSTEIN: He knew for sure. He knew for sure. OK according to Bernstein a CIA linguist strongly believed it was him, it probably was. Might Franks who would have been ordering his troops into harm's way had reasons to be dubious since he didn’t know the linguist? What if he had ordered the troops in and a lot got killed (the Black Hawk Down incident had only been a few years earlier) and OBL wasn’t there or got a way? There are any number of possibilities. However, as Bernstein said, he had requested the troops orally and in writing, and no doubt provided his basis for believing OBL had been located. Commanders who refrain from actions because they are afraid of losses should perhaps be pushing paper in the Pentagon and not troops in the field. While the Black Hawk Down episode was a grisly one, a failure of nerve will never obtain Osama's head. The opportunity to kill or capture Bin Laden seems to have existed, and was foregone. If US losses had been heavy, a dead Osama would have been considered worth the effort. And even if OBL did manage to elude US troops, the Bush-ites could at least have pointed toward the serious effort undertaken, including the loss of US lives, as a measure of their genuine desire to catch the bastard. As it stands, what can they point to with pride in this so-called hunt for OBL? Precious little, it seems. As Bush himself declared, it seems to have been some time since he even cared. He wrote: "Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, let me tell you that we found no evidence — none, zero, no kidding — that George Bush knew about Al Qaeda’s plan to attack on September 11. Indeed, the grim joke at BBC is that anyone accusing George Bush of knowing anything at all must have solid evidence. This is not a story of what George Bush knew but rather of his very-unfunny ignorance. And it was not stupidity, but policy: no asking Saudis uncomfortable questions about their paying off roving packs of killers, especially when those Saudis are so generous to Bush family businesses." It seems you did precisely what he didn’t want his reader to. He’s saying this was done for political and personal financial reasons. Re: your fine distinction that Bush was motivated by personal greed and personal political considerations, and hence wasn't solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, you seem that have it somewhat backwards. Bush was solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, and this seems to haved earned Bush a pass from you, so long as it was motivated by personal gain. To me, it is largely irrelevant for which corrupt reasons that is true, only that it is. You neglected a pithy piece of Palast's post: In November 2001, when BBC ran the report on the spike of investigations of Saudi funding of terror, the Bush defenders whom we’d invited to respond on air dismissed the concerns of lower level FBI agents who’d passed over the WAMY documents. No action was taken on the group headed by the bin Ladens. Then, in May this year, fifty FBI agents surrounded, invaded and sealed off WAMY’s Virginia office. It was like a bad scene out of the ‘Untouchables.’ The raid took place three years after our report and long after the bin Ladens had waved bye-bye. It is not surprising that the feds seized mostly empty files and a lot of soccer balls. Why now this belated move on the bin Laden’s former operation? Why not right after the September 11 attack? This year’s FBI raid occurred just days after an Islamist terror assault in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Apparently, messin’ with the oil sheiks gets this Administration’s attention. Falling towers in New York are only for Republican convention photo ops. The 199-I memo was passed to BBC television by the gumshoes at the National Security News Service in Washington. We authenticated it, added in our own sleuthing, then gave the FBI its say, expecting the usual, “It’s baloney, a fake.” But we didn’t get the usual response. Rather, FBI headquarters said, “There are lots of things the intelligence community knows and other people ought not to know.” Ought not to know? What else ought we not to know, Mr. President? And when are we supposed to forget it? Nothing in the article indicates he called the FBI off of OBL himself. The evidence that having done what Plast though should have been done would have prevented the attack Since you've stopped in mid-sentence, I should allow you to complete it prior to responding to whatever point you intend to raise.

Perhaps that’s because they’ve been unable to. It took them years to pull off 9/11, there first ever attack on the US when they had safe haven and the US had “its pants down” now that they/he is on the run and US security has tightened doing so again would not be easy. I doubt either of us can answer that authoritatively. A car bomb in front of a post office or mall probably would not too difficult assuming they could 1) still put cells together in the US with the know how 2) obtain bomb making materials without being detected but hard targets wouldn’t be so easy. Insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere have little trouble managing this, in an environment more heavily secured by military than anywhere in the US. For an implacable enemy, OBL has shown as little interest in continuing what he started as GWB has shown in hunting OBL down. Rather odd that the leaders of both factions, bitter enemies on the surface, seem to have lost all interest in each other. I rarely agree with Tim but such an assertion is silly, is it really your contention that increased: security at airports, boarder crossings and other “hard targets”/critical locations; surveillance of suspects; coordination between the FBI, CIA etc and the other steps taken post 9/11 have as much effect as praying to your rock? As did Tim, you are purposefully missing the key point - "Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture." Unless one can point to repeated examples of intended AQ strikes on US soil being foiled by DHS, et al, one must surmise there is no evidence upon which to believe AQ exhibits such intent. If you can provide such examples, I'm all ears. I’ve heard that claimed but see little supporting evidence. All there is are tapes made by the informant after the fact in which he claimed he had told them about the attack ahead of time and could have switched the explosives but it seems they had basically “disowned” him before the bombing. From which you draw what inference? That they were correct to do so? If so, the result militates in the opposite direction. That they were incorrect to do so? Then why did they? Because a man whom they had previously thought credible, a man whom they insinuated into the alleged cell and whose actions they had directed, suddenly became unworthy of their continued confidence precisely at the time he allegedly warned them the plot was about to reach fruition? What an odd way to conduct such affairs. 1. IIRC it is far from certain he had told them only that he claimed after the fact he had. Apperently they lost faith in him he was a paid informer not an agent. 2. Even if they did screw up that does prove conspiracy. I realize you meant the opposite of what you have typed here, but I prefer what you wrote to what you intended. I agree with you that the Bush administration (and to a lesser extent the Clinton administration) was grossly negligent but once again incompetence doesn’t = conspiracy. The memo contained little intelligence that could have been acted on nothing indicated such attacks were imminent. Precisely how many times must one swallow the "incompetence" line before it demonstably ceases to be incompetence, requiring you to entertain more unsavoury possibilities? Just how credulous would you have your fellow citizens be? Such a blase uncritical credulity is not an attribute when attempting to divine the truth in such matters. Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper) but for “the Department of Defense [to] move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems.” All due respect to Ron aside he misquoted the paper so maybe you’d like to address it or admit error. Sorry, but no dice. I read the documentation in precisely the way Ron does, and I notice he's added some further comments, with which I also concur. You are free to disagree. However, irrespective of the goal in mind - territorial hegemony or development of new weapons or whatever else is inferred - the fact remains that precisely the scenario that they identified as speeding the achievement of their goals is what transpired. Precisely how many times must one swallow the "happy coincidence" line before it demonstably ceases to be coincidence, requiring you to entertain more unsavoury possibilities?

Perhaps that’s because they’ve been unable to. It took them years to pull off 9/11, there first ever attack on the US when they had safe haven and the US had “its pants down” now that they/he is on the run and US security has tightened doing so again would not be easy. How difficult is it to arrange car bombs in Washington? They need not execute a full-scale attack of any great magnitude; regular small-scale reminders would do the trick just as effectively. When people theorize that the absence of secondary attacks on US soil are attributable to improved US security regimes, I can provide just as much evidence that this absence of violence is because I pray very hard to a pet rock in my basement which is all powerful. Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture. At least you prefaced your supposition with "perhaps," an important qualifier to provide in such assertions. Also they seem to have pulled off some attacks in other parts of the world. Oddly, attacks in other parts of the world were largely conducted, based upon extant knowledge to date, by home-grown radicalized Muslims, rather than those imported for such a purpose. There can be little doubt whom they believed to be the inspiration for their actions, but there's been precious little to demonstrate, thus far, that they were undertaken at the express bidding of OBL or his AQ entourage. Consequently, when you say "they seem to have pulled off some attacks in other parts of the world," one is unsure of precisely who "they" are. I’ve heard that claimed but see little supporting evidence. All there is are tapes made by the informant after the fact in which he claimed he had told them about the attack ahead of time and could have switched the explosives but it seems they had basically “disowned” him before the bombing. There's far more to the tale than that, which I cannot go into at the moment, but let's assume your assertion is correct. How stunningly successful a result ensued from FBI first planting a mole into a radical cell and then ignoring him? Is this not akin to the later lapse when one George Bush, et al, managed to ignore a briefing memo headed "OBL determined to attack the US," which included the prediction that such an attack would use hijacked planes to accomplish the deed? Does one not detect a rather strong blind spot, an unwillingness to confront looming threats and then falsely plead ignorance after the fact? What purpose is served by such admissions of incompetence when facing what is only thereafter characterized as an implacable enemy? Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper) but for “the Department of Defense [to] move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems.” http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm I see that the formidable Ron Ecker has already dispatched that particular canard, so I'll not dwell upon it. A bit of a myth http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html I see you subscribe to a contra-myth, which is precisely what is contained in the above link. A far more accurate, albeit convoluted, chronogy of events is provided by Daniel Hopsicker at: http://www.madcowprod.com/06282007a.html It should disturb you as much as it does me that we have known since October 5, 2001, when it was reported by the Tampa Tribune, that at least one such flight did take place in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized - despite repeated denials by Bush, the FBI, the FAA, et al that such had ever occurred - only to later be grudgingly acknowledged. When agencies of one's own government repeatedly lie, and come clean only when there is no other option, what does it say about one's government, or the credulity of people who continue to embrace such myths only because they wish them to be true? Can you provide a citation for this claim? Sure. You may recall that John Kerry repeatedly made this claim, presumably with some basis in fact, while running in the '04 election. It would be a simple matter to cynically denounce such claims as political posturing by a Presidential candidate at the expense of the incumbent. Were it not for the subsequently published book "Jawbreaker" [Dec. '05], written by the CIA point man in charge of seeking out OBL at Tora Bora. CIA initially stalled vetting his book, which had to be submitted to the Agency prior to publication as is common in all such cases, then ensured that some of the book's most damning allegations were excised. Those interested in the meat of the matter might benefit from reading what can be found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/ A transcript of a January '06 Paula Zahn interview on CNN with the book's CIA-operative author, Gary Bernstein, can be found midway down the page at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/06/pzn.01.html Much that corroborates Bernstein's version of events can be found in "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan" by Gary Schroen, also a Jawbreaker veteran, and Robert Baer has been no wallflower in recounting his own bitter experiences trying motivate a serious hunt for Bin Laden. And this solicitude toward the Bin Ladens by the Bushes is not the first, nor unique. Now that I now you share my admiration for Greg Palast, Len, allow me to direct your attention to an old report of his - November '01 - illustrating that the Bush White House seems to have shut down US intelligence interest in two members of the Bin Laden clan living next door to the CIA in early '01. While this event, transpiring prior to the attacks, is less damning than solicitude shown by Bush toward OBL and kin after the attacks, it illustrates the unbroken pattern of a President doing his level best to ensure that a presumed enemy - already wanted for prior crimes against US interests abroad and already slated for murder by CIA via a Clinton authorization - has never had to pay for his crimes, real and alleged. I look forward to your comments once you've had a chance to read Palast's piece, which can be found at: http://www.gregpalast.com/september-11-wha...0%9d/#more-1844

Just when did Jones “trace the roots of radical anti-Semitism”? If you refer back to my prior post, it's in the first few paragraphs of Palast's article/endorsement. Speaking of anti-Semitism take a look at that article about Gadahn, the thrust of which was ‘the guy’s Jewish he must he a Mossad agent’. Too often, the Jonathan Pollards of this world make such a presumption all too easy to sell to the credulous. AIPAC and similar agencies of semi-covert influence over the governments of other nations likewise bolster such presumptions. Mossad operatives have at least twice been caught using multiple false Canadian identities, including passports. While we in Canada rather frown upon such things, for it now makes Canadians instantly suspect as possible Mossad agents to unfriendly nations while travelling in the Middle East, such ill-considered tradecraft also creates the suspicion that just about anyone might be a Mossad apparatchik. While such a ruse might be effective [who would feign being a Canadian, of all things - other than Yanks in Europe with Maple Leaf flags on their backbacks, I mean?], it becomes a liability in the longer term, inciting the very paranoia you describe - ‘the guy’s Jewish he must he a Mossad agent,’ even if he is Canadian. I’ve yet to hear your reaction to the distorted version of the truth which emanated from Jones’ site. As noted above, I don't seek out Jones, but encounter his output fairly often in my cyber-travels. However, when time permits, I'll happily examine whatever distortions may be on offer at the links you have provided.

At the time [2001?], Dick replied that it would require much time to explain details he'd largely shelved/forgotten, and his time was then occupied with writing or promoting [can't recall which] a new book, Eye Of The Whale. I didn't press him very hard, for two reasons. First, given that his source had insisted on anonymity, I knew it was cheeky of me to even ask for more details [though I'd have gladly settled for any info falling short of naming a name.] Second, I learned long ago that unwavering persistence in such matters makes one seem more an obsessive pest than a diligent researcher. Russell is a first class investigator, as his mid-70s output in the Village Voice had already illustrated to me well prior to his writing "TMWKTM." Perhaps once his source on this luggage matter has died, Russell will no longer feel compelled to honour the source's request for anonymity. In the meantime, he has devoted much time and energy to environmental matters. Remarkably, though it often appears hopeless, saving the world from environmental disaster may prove far less quixotic than solving the Kennedy assassination mysteries. Godspeed to Dick, whatever his current endeavours.

Ron, I am the guilty party on this one. You can find the relevant portion in the original edition on page 775, footnote # 17, which says: "The source who told the author about the tape recording of Oswald's voice being in [Win] Scott's possession requested anonymity. I can only add that this source was well positioned to know about this and had no reason to fabricate the story. The same source suggested there was something very odd about the CIA's awareness of Oswald's Mexico City trip. "It had to do with some luggage that was found at the airport," which indicates that Oswald may have flown into (or out of) Mexico at some point. The source believed that Oswald may in fact have flown to Havana and back to Mexico City." It seems to me that if this "luggage" had been lost during some prior trip to or from Havana, it would have been more widely reported by CIA, since much of the cable traffic originating from there was devoted to depicting a relationship between Oswald and Castro and/or KGB. Such a discovery of LHO luggage would have sealed the deal, though it would raise obvious questions about how and when LHO made such a trip, given his demonstrable presence elsewhere throughout the time period. A more plausible possibility, to me at least, is that the luggage was designed to implicate Oswald in a trip to Havana immediately post-assassination, which is why all news of it seems to have been scuttled. How does his luggage get to Mexico City when Oswald is in police custody? Clearly, Russell's source prefers to think Oswald had previously been to Havana rather than entertain the notion this bit of evidence had been planted, presumably to be discovered after the assassination, leading to the inference that the assassin had sought refuge in Havana after committing the dastardly deed. I tried repeatedly to get further information from Dick Russell on this tiny but salient detail, to no avail.

Between the "Nazi" epithets and "direputable liars" assertions, it seems Len finds it insufficient to rebut what offends him and must resort to less gentlemanly methods of discourse. That is his right, but it hardly elevates the debate above the very muck and mire he so decries. For a somewhat more evenhanded evaluation of Jones' role in the mediasphere, one might try reading BBC report Greg Palast's thoughts on the topic, which can be found at: http://www.infowars.com/print_palast.htm Alex Jones [is] the only major radio host concerned about my story for BBC about George Bush killing off the investigation of WAMY, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, prior to September 11. The FBI said they were a "suspected terrorist organization," but Bush's intelligence chiefs called off the hunt of the US branch of the organization led by Abdullah bin Ladin. Now, the Somalian government has arrested Osama bin Ladin's messenger, the man who took his latest tape to Al Jazeera TV ... a staff member of WAMY. Shortly thereafter, George Bush's buddy, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, invited WAMY to meet in his palace where he told them: "There is no extremism in religion." Really? Maybe the prince hasn't read the murder-promoting propaganda issued by WAMY found in the apartment of the World Trade Center bombers ... or seen their terror-cheering pep talks to Muslim teenagers at their summer camp in Florida... we at BBC London obtained the video tape (something the FBI can't seem to do). Here's where you and I agree, Alex: there really are terrorists out there. But we won't find them or stop them by repealing the first, second and fifth amendments to the Bill of Rights. They will be caught (and would have been caught before September 11) if our President and his minions stop protecting the Saudi Arabian financiers of berserkers. Thank you for your courage, Alex. Some consider BBC TV the "left wing" and your program the "right wing." The truth is neither left nor right ... and I applaud you for disseminating unpleasant realities. A lot of my friends and colleagues may be surprised to read this: after all, BBC Television is considered "left wing" by Americans and the Alex Jones considered "right wing." But the truth is neither left nor right, and I applaud Alex Jones for standing alone among major syndicated radio hosts for broadcasting hard realities too unpleasant for the mainstream US media. Jones is fearless and thoughtful. Do I agree with everything the man says? Heck, no. But then, he probably wouldn't accept all my views either. This isn't about opinions, this is about the dissemination of crucial news otherwise denied the American public by the mainstream media propaganda machinery. Let me give you three examples from my experience. I've broadcast three stories for BBC Television Newsnight London which have received international attention, but have suffered a virtual blackout on US commercial radio and TV ... except the Alex Jones show. They are 1. The IMF/World Bank documents. In early 2000, BBC TV and the Guardian newspapers of London released sections of a large cache of confidential documents from inside these agencies, the financial arm of the new globalization order. They reveal secretive plans for a virtual financial coup d'etat in several nations, from Argentina to Tanzania. The documents reveal the IMF and World Bank's knowing destruction of economies and cruel hidden demands on these nations. The information was top of the news in Europe, Latin American and page one in Turkey. Yet in the USA, editors ignored this damning information on the New World Order, in part because US news editors believe the information is far too sophisticated for Americans to understand. Not Jones, he explained the information, gave it a lengthy hearing for his listeners, showing a respect for their intellect not common to US commercial broadcasting. 2. The Bush Administration's hindering FBI and CIA investigations of the bin Ladin family and Saudi Arabian funding of terror prior to September 11, 2001. US broadcasters were scared to death of airing this report shown on BBC Television's Newsnight on November 6, 2001. Dan Rather of CBS news, who appeared on Newsnight, said that to report stories asking such questions would get him lynched ... he was to fearful to do it. Not Jones. He gave the BBC and Guardian story (which won a California State University journalism award) a full airing. A year later, the US media is beginning to cover the story, timidly, where Jones took it on without hesitation. 3. Theft of the US presidential election. No one could accuse Alex Jones of being a Democratic Party partisan, yet he reported what other mainstream US media delayed reporting for six months: the BBC story that the Bush family and allies had fixed the vote in Florida by illegally removing tens of the thousands of legal Black voters from the state's voter rolls in the months before the November 2000 election. The Washington Post did run the story ... six months after Jones gave the information to his listeners. You don't have to agree with everything Alex Jones says or reports to say, this guy is a national treasure, a light breaking through the electronic Berlin Wall of the US media establishment. Greg Palast London/ New York" Palast, the author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (Penguin Plume 2003), reports for BBC Television's Newsnight. Len says "It’s more than ironic that people who take them seriously decry the unreliability and bias of the MSM." Here we have Greg Palast, just such a MSM reporter, illustrating the bias of the MSM in the most concrete terms, and calling Jones a "national treasure." Perhaps Len will care to liken Palast to Himmler or Goerring or employ some other broadbrush "anti-Semite" smear, and likewise assert that the BBC reporter, too, is a "disreputable xxxx." Such coarse tactics cheapen the debate that might otherwise occur, and reflect more poorly upon the author than his intended victims. It is richly ironic that a radio host willing to trace the roots of radical anti-Semitism and Islamic extremism, while his fellows will not, is compared by Len Colby to Hitler. As always, caveat emptor.

I first encountered this trope about 30 years ago, via a man named William Cooper, whose hypothesis was based on a low-quality nth generation bootlegged version of the Zfilm. It purportedly "showed" Greer offing the CinC. Cooper's premise, as best I can recall, was that Kennedy was about to reveal the truth about space aliens to the US populace, and hence had to be silenced before he could do so. If one wished to discredit JFK researchers as feeble-minded and gullible, one could do little better than Cooper's output. A number of years ago, a fellow member of this Forum kindly provided me with a copy of the unpublished "Murder From Within," which I had often seen footnoted as a credible source in others books' bibliographies. It was, and remains, a fascinating read, meticulously detailed with facts and suppositions that were well-constructed and rather novel in the JFK research world when it was first written. It was only when it reached the cringe-worthy "Greer did it" postulation that the book went rather badly sideways. However, despite this fairly large lapse of reason, I still think the book is highly worthy of reading for all of the other details presented, and the style with which it is done. Similarly, while I think the "Greer did it" scenario is no less silly today, I would be greatly disheartened if Paul Rigby's posts in support of this hypothesis resulted in Forum members becoming disinclined to read his other very worthwhile and insightful posts. I have learned much of value from Paul's posts on Richard Starnes - a treasure trove of critical information about the sturm and drang of early Viet Nam machinations within various compartments of the US government at the time - and other of his posts. While most here may eschew - rightly in my humble estimation - the "Greer did it" scenario that Paul favours, let us not overlook valid and valued contributions from this Forum member in other areas of research. We do ourselves no favours bandying about terms such as "lunatic" and "insane," particularly when those who do so are themselves proponents of "Castro did it" or "Madame Nhu did it" or other equally untenable scenarios. I think Chuck Robbins hit the nail on the head with his observation: You may criticize what others raise questions about. That is your right. When you start in with the personal attacks and the name calling, you know...things like stupid, etc., that is not your right. Every person who reads these threads has the faculties to determine for themselves what is nonsense, factual, theoretical, supposition or just plain fantasy. We all have our beliefs as to what happened that day. Wouldn't we all be better served by allowing all to voice their opinions? How many persons keep good observations to themselves due to a fear of being ridiculed? Who is benefitted by any decrease in communication in this situation? Think about it. Luckily, Paul Rigby is no shrinking violet, and will continue to contribute much of value, with any luck. However, his contributions will be in vain if we summarily dismiss and ignore his most cogent observations because we vehemently disagree with only one observation we feel is spurious. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sure, Peter, but there's not much to add. Thomas Graves asked about the oddity of OBL, in his most recent release, blaming Donald Rumsfeld for the deaths of two million Vietnamese. I merely pointed out that prior to being your nation's oldest defense secretary, Rumsfeld was also its youngest defense secretary when he was tapped for the job by Gerald Ford in '75. As such, he was responsible for prosecuting the tail end of the Viet Nam conflict, but surely couldn't be blamed for the entirety of the carnage there, which one could rightly infer from OBL's wording [or perhaps a glitch in translation?] I am greatly heartened by Charles Drago's reference to OBL as a 'dramatic character,' for I think this accurately reflects his role in contemporary events. A few points I'd like to raise in this regard, corollaries to the JFK assassination that seem to have somehow escaped a few of our esteemed fellow Forum members. First, on Nine-One-One Bush publicly identified OBL as the sole culprit, just as Oswald had been immediately identified as the sole assassin. In neither case had there been sufficient time to investigate and reach a tenable conclusion, but that was somehow deemed unnecessary by the accusing parties in both events. We know how [in]accurate the first charge was; I urge those with an open mind to consider that the second charge might have been equally misleading. Second, just as Oswald proclaimed his innocence, and thereby missed a singular opportunity to propagandize for whatever cause might have compelled him, so too did OBL initially renounce - and disclaim responsibility for - the events of that dreadful day, and thereby forego a chance to proclaim what had led to the act. While prisons are full of those who falsely proclaim their innocence, it is also true that some innocent parties have not only been incarcerated but executed. It is worth recalling that the founding principles of the USA include the presumption of innocence, a formality never extended to either LHO or OBL. Third, despite the mountain of so-called evidence levelled against Oswald, the closer one scrutinized any individual piece of that evidence, the more readily apparent it became that it didn't, nay couldn't, withstand examination without collapsing. Meanwhile, anything that might reasonably be viewed as exculpatory toward Oswald was either scuttled and ignored, or twisted to conform to a predesigned brief against him. Witnesses were intimidated, interviews were misreported, evidence was suppressed or baldly fabricated, and connections between Oswald and various branches of the US government were either falsely denied or deep-sixed. Can anyone who has pored over the Nine-One-One chronology presented by the US government claim it is any more accurate? Fourth, despite desperate attempts to preclude any official investigation, the Bush administration was finally shamed into empanelling just such a probe. In announcing its formation, George Bush actually referred to it as a modern-day "Warren Commission," which those who have studied the Warren Report should bear in mind when studying the shoddy output of Kean, Hamilton, et al. It may have been an unintentional truth, but Bush accurately predicted the veracity of the Nine-One-One report when he made the comparison. Fifth, an interesting parallel exists regarding the official version of both events. In the case of Oswald, he stood accused of having fired a rather shoddy weapon with a lethal accuracy unrivalled by those world-class marksmen who were press-ganged into attempts to replicate the feat. Rather than accept that no single shooter could achieve what was attributed to Oswald, the naysayers merely repeated the mantra that he must have done so, for that was the initial allegation, contrary facts be damned. Similarly, when skeptics on the Nine-One-One issue point out that OBL couldn't have predicted, nor arranged for, the inexplicable stand-down of US airpower on that dreadful day - that the event couldn't have occurred without some type of connivance by or contribution from someone within the US government itself - the modern-day nay-sayers repeat the mantra that a conspiracy within any quarters of the US government couldn't have gone unnoticed, and was hence impossible to credit, but nevertheless bray accusations toward a man half a world away whom, as they point out gleefully, lives in a cave. It is remarkable that those who denounce charges of US governmental collusion as an impossibly complex "conspiracy theory" nevertheless attribute that same impossibly complex feat to a single man in a cave that cannot be located. Does not the Bible caution against "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel?" Finally, it should not go unnoticed that in Bush's immediate identification of OBL as the mastermind of Nine-One-One, he didn't bother to include any basis for believing his charges to be true; he thought it sufficient to merely make the claim. While the US populace may be forgiven for having foolishly placed that degree of faith in their so-called [but appointed, not elected] leader's integrity and judgement then, with the benefit of hindsight, can any rational person still take this man's claims at face value? Having been so consistently wrong, about virtually everything ever claimed, is acceptance of his claims re: OBL anything more than an article of faith? Would those prepared to place their own fellow countrymen and women in harm's way not rest easier knowing, rather than merely supposing along with Bush, who was responsible? Only this morning I encountered a man from Florida who has spent most of his adult life in the US military. We chatted amiably about a number of things Floridian [Kitty Harris, Charlie Crist, Jeb Bush - whom he extolled as a great governor, by the way], but when it came to George Bush, he said that all he knew was that nobody had launched an attack on US soil in the past five years, all credit for this, apparently, going to the USA's Dear Leader. When I asked if he didn't think it odd that somebody fiendishly clever enough to mount so complex a plot five years ago was somehow now too impotent to even explode a couple of car bombs in Daytona or New Jersey, just to remind us all of his continued existence and relevance, he said that he'd never really thought about it. Therein lies the rub; too few people are prepared to think for themselves and undertake the homework necessary to reach a personal conclusion, rather than one that has been prefabricated and premasticated for their consumption. [My new acquaintance from Florida was a splendid chap, by the way, and despite being a diehard Republican was quite willing to entertain any number of possibilities as at least theoretically possible, unlike certain hidebound Forum members with a far narrower view of the world and how it is made to work, by whom, and for what ends.] I realize that all of the foregoing is far more than you asked for, Peter, and that I will likely be pilloried by some other Forum members for having the audacity to make some of the statements above. However, as the topic of the thread includes both JFK and OBL's observations on JFK's demise, I thought it might be the right time to remind some Forum members that they are ill-served by a credulous willingness to accept and parrot only what they've been told, rather than what they've discovered for themselves through diligent research. The same nation that was successfully lied to once on an issue of paramount importance can never rest easy in the belief that it could never happen again, a point that often seems lost on some here.

___________________________ Vietnam War. Rumsfield? Someone please enlighten me. Thanks, --Thomas ___________________________ One is free to infer what one wishes, but I think he refers to the Rumsfeld/Cheney era under Nixon/Ford. To paraphrase a catchy little ditty, they didn't start the fire, but they kept it burning well past the time it was thought "necessary and crucial." Due to the skewed chronology in the quote, by referencing Rumsfeld prior to Kennedy, OBL appears to be blaming Rumsfeld for the war's entirety, but I submit the interpretation I have provided is closer to his actual intent.