How is "bushco" still keeping everyone quiet?

[Ohio Joe]

Regardless of your particular CT, lots (and I mean lots) of people were either directly "in on it" or knew that they had been used as soon as the attacks happened. How is "bushco" still keeping all of these people quiet now that they are no longer running things?

[zappaman]

1. well

I and a few others get paid by BUSCHINC(not BUSHCO...that's like refering to TREKERS as TREKIES).
We come to forum boards and make sure that the intrepid detectives who post the truth, get ridiculed and mocked for their beliefs, even though they are right on the money.
If people knew the truth, BUSHINC would be swept out of power.
Yes, BUSHINC still runs the world.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA(evil laugh)

[BeFree]

54. First thing we need is:

A list of everybody on duty that day who were a witness or had any knowledge of govt' actions.

Then you have them testify under oath and publicly release that testimony.

Part two would be to have scholars and researchers pour over that testimony.

.............


Of course many on duty that day are dead. So a list of how and when they died would be prudent.

............................

And remember, that many bushco people were allowed to make secret testimony, so that RIGHT FUCKING THERE answers the question in the OP of how things have been kept quiet.

[Ohio Joe]

85. "Of course many on duty that day are dead." WTF?

I don't suppose you have any evidence of this statement?

"And remember, that many bushco people were allowed to make secret testimony, so that RIGHT FUCKING THERE answers the question in the OP of how things have been kept quiet."

No, it does not. How are they still being kept quiet? Why do none of these people come forward?

[BeFree]

86. Yeah, DEAD

Several hundred firemen and police, pentagon employees, etc. John O'Neil.

Funny how here on your thread, there is you seemingly denying anyone is dead, there is someone claiming there is no evidence Cheney is a criminal, someone who's only comment is an idiotic 'chemtrails' and another who doesn't even understand what being deputized means.

What a fucking embarrassing bunch of posts there are in one little thread, eh?

[Ohio Joe]

87. I never denied anyone was dead

I thought you were referring to those that are/were a part of "bushco" since that was the context. Perhaps if you would be specific in your statements or at least gave cites once in a while, it would be easier to follow you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

89. it was an interesting bait and switch

In the prior post, he suggested, "So a list of how and when they died would be prudent." That wouldn't lead you to believe he was referring to people who died on 9/11, would it?

[SDuderstadt]

90. Interestingly...

the initials for "bait & switch" are b.s.

[BeFree]

94. Evidence?

He asked me for evidence. I gave him evidence. And what we need to know is how many others who were on duty that day have died since then.

Is it your contention that in 9+ years, no one on duty that day has died?

What I asked for was a study to undertake the names and conditions of all people on duty that day.

So, the bait and switch was all Joe's. Asking me for evidence of people dieing?
How fucking dumb is that?

All in all, it is rather fucking odd that yall gang up and slam citizens for asking things while bush and cheney are given a slide. Rather fucking odd, imo.

[OnTheOtherHand]

97. here we go again

Asking me for evidence of people dieing?
How fucking dumb is that?

All in all, it is rather fucking odd that yall gang up and slam citizens for asking things

Well, naturally, IOKIYBF. (It's OK If You're BeFree.)

There's something kind of awesome about your sense of entitlement and martyrdom, but, not so much.

[BeFree]

98. Martyrdom? Entitlement?

Me asking questions is martyrdom? Am I not entitled to ask questions of the government?

Your questions and attacks on me are going down hill, fast.

My motivations are being questioned, while the fucking criminals get a pass? WTF?

[OnTheOtherHand]

99. as I said, IOKIYBF n/t

[BeFree]

100. Like I said

You need to not focus (although it is flattering) on me.

Really, yalls interest in me is quite the coup. I'm counting heads here. What, it's like 5 or 6 now that can't take the truth and flutter away muttering and mumbling something like: "that mean old Befree".

Hilariously sick. But there it is for everyone to read.

[OnTheOtherHand]

101. riiiiiiiiiiiiight... n/t

[BeFree]

95. Good question, Joe.

Joe asks:
"Why do none of these people come forward?"

Maybe because you don't ask bush and cheney to come forward? Because you are fine with them and their secret testimony? You're allowing them to stay quiet?

[zappaman]

96. Heh

Hey Bush and Cheney!
I DEMAND YOU COME FORWARD!!!!

Happy now?

[noise]

2. Why are 9/11 Commission MFR's still classified?

Why are records being withheld for no reason?

[Ohio Joe]

3. You should start a thread on that topic

Any comment on this thread?

[noise]

4. Maybe they see how whistleblowers are treated

My initial post was on topic. I was pointing out your double standard.

[Ohio Joe]

10. Please elaborate

Because you are not making any sense to me.

[noise]

14. You are stating that

there is no good reason for a continued cover-up. After all the so called authority ("bushco") keeping the cover-up in place is no longer in power.

I am noting that a cover-up continues. Why don't you explain why a cover-up continues for no good reason? My reference for cover-up is the secrecy surrounding the conduct of Alec Station and the FBI ITOS in regard to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.

[Ohio Joe]

19. No, that is incorrect

I am not making any statements, I am asking how people remaining quiet fits into truthers various CT's. I am not looking to get into what is being kept quiet but rather how it is being kept quiet. I get the idea that you feel that the real power in keeping this quiet lies not with "bushco" (as seems to fit into many CT's regarding 9/11) but rather with the various alphabet soup agencies (FBI/CIA/ect), and that it is these agencies that see to it that all the people that know the truth keep quiet... Is that correct?

[noise]

22. How has a cover-up been maintained for almost ten years?

One factor is the intimidation associated with leaking classified information. Granted this is not a complete explanation as people like Thomas Tamm risked prosecution to expose criminal conduct.

That is a very good question. I don't know the answer.

[SDuderstadt]

35. More likely answer...

there really isn't anything to "cover-up".

[noise]

69. Admittedly Gimigliano's statement is impressive

Agent Douglas Miller has said that he doesn't have "a rational answer" to explain why the CIA blocked him from sharing information with the bureau, particularly a report of such obvious magnitude about al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. He speculated that CIA officials at the CTC were annoyed that he had encroached on their territory.

A CIA spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, ridiculed the allegations.

"I have every reason--every reason--to believe that's complete garbage," he said in a brief telephone interview. "Not only did the 9/11 Commission look at the matter in detail, but former Director George Tenet wrote about it at some length in his book."

FBI Prevents Agents from Telling 'Truth' About 9/11 on PBS

Tenet wrote about it in his book! Case closed (where have I heard that before)!

As I have linked before John Farmer admitted he doesn't know why the information wasn't shared. Meaning that the 9/11 Commission failed to find out what happened:

So the question has always been quite simple: Why wasn’t the Mihdhar information shared with the F.B.I.? “That is one of the big mysteries. Why was the information not passed on?” Mr. Farmer told The Observer. Mr. Farmer is also the author of a recent book about the attacks, Ground Truth. “And the explanations aren’t good,” he added.

The 9/11 Commission, in its exhaustive report, never explained why such important intelligence disappeared into the C.I.A.’s black hole. (Complicating matters, the C.I.A. initially claimed it did tell the F.B.I.) One reason for the lapse, insiders have speculated, is that C.I.A. analysts concealed it out of spite—they simply hated the F.B.I. Cliques in national security agencies, of course, can rival those in high school.

The Gay Terrorist

The turf battle explanation doesn't hold up for a number of reasons. Mainly because once the information was shared in late August the FBI ITOS obstructed the USS Cole investigators.

[rschop]

67. re: How has a cover-up been maintained for almost ten years?,

From prior post:

That is a very good question. I don't know the answer.

The answer is in post #64

[noise]

70. The obvious rebuttal

Intelligence agents care more about their pensions than the victims of 9/11? They are more worried about following illegal orders from corrupt superiors than following their conscience?

IMO the legislative agenda quid pro quo was a BS excuse intended to deceive the public. A way for politicians to justify outrageous lack of accountability.

[LARED]

5. Chemtrails nt

[sylvi]

6. All the witnesses

All the witnesses get a weekly mailer postmarked, "Crawford, TX"

It reads simply, "I know what's on your mind. Don't even think about it."

[BeFree]

7. What do you mean?

"No longer running things"

[pauldp]

9. Good point.

Gates still runs the DOD for one.

[Ohio Joe]

11. So Obama is also part of "bushco"?

My how the cabal grows.

[BeFree]

15. Why isn't Cheney in jail?

I'm not playing a game, I ask simple honest questions.

If you don't want to answer honestly, just say so.

If you don't want a discussion, then just say so now and we'll be done.

What do you mean when you write bushco is no longer running things?

[zappaman]

16. "Why isn't Cheney in jail?'

Seriously?
Do you not understand how the world works?
Of course he should be in jail!

But, "BUSHCO" doesn't run shit.
Never did.
But think whatever delusion you want.
Oh, and...

Heh.

[Ohio Joe]

20. Yes, you are playing a game

It is the same one you always play, answer a question with a question instead on giving an real answer.

Now... I asked a question... You answered it with another question... I tried to get clarification.... you answered it with a different question.

If you want to be honest and have honest discussion then give an answer, then ask your question. My original question stands and awaits an answer from you. If you think the premise of my question is incorrect, explain why and then ask a question. Anything less is your standanrd game. Be specific for once.

[hack89]

38. Because there is no evidence he committed a crime? nt

[BeFree]

55. That is sad, hack

"...no evidence he (Cheney) committed a crime"

[hack89]

57. What specific charge would you arrest him for? nt

[BeFree]

58. Halliburton

You really want to defend the 'no evidence' claim?

And of course, to the OP's question about how 'EVERYONE' has been kept quiet.

Have you seen Cheney's testimony to your commission? Or is it being kept quiet?

You people in denial just need to stop. You stand in the way of the American spirit of truth and loyalty to the people. We want to know. Get the hell out of our way.

[hack89]

59. "Haliburton" is not a crime.

care to try again?

[BeFree]

60. We're done

People who deny Cheney is a criminal are like climate change deniers.

There is no use wasting another second on climate change deniers. Eh?

[hack89]

65. Criminals are criminals because they commit specific crimes

I am not defending Chaney - I think he is a piece of shit. But if you can't articulate a specific crime he committed, then perhaps you have answered you own question as to why he is not in jail. Being a complete asshole and a shitty person is not a crime.

[eomer]

79. Violation of Geneva Conventions prohibitions against torture.

And also treason if we could walk up the chain of command and get someone to turn on him.

[hack89]

82. Possibly

Unfortunately it is politically impossible for Obama to prosecute the Bush administration for such crimes. Many consider Obama a war criminal for civilian deaths in Pakistan due to drone attacks. There is no way he will set a precedence that will put him in legal jeopardy for a similar prosecution.

[eomer]

88. And I consider Obama a war criminal for failing to prosecute

obvious violations of the Geneva Conventions, because that's the law.

And I think it may also be correct that Obama is a war criminal for drone attacks and other actions.

Those are Obama's doing and won't make me compromise my position on war crimes; how about you?

[hack89]

92. I suspect we see eye to eye on war crimes

I was simply pointing out the obvious(at least to me) reason why Bush and Cheney will never be indicted in America for war crimes.

[pauldp]

8. How is he keeping them quiet about the lies leading up to Iraq?

How many people we "in on it" for that conspiracy? How many members of the administration? How many people in the press? How many people in Blair's govt? 1 million Iraqis dead, thousands of US soldiers and no investigations are planned. What has no one gone to prison for that? They got away with starting a war for profit based on lies. How is it that he is keeping the lid on that conspiracy? Answer that one and I think you will have some clues to the question you pose in the op.




Edit for typo

[Ohio Joe]

12. ummm... The lies leading to the Iraq war were never really a CT

There was documented evidence at the time they were lies. Anyone paying attention and giving into the hype was aware of that.

[pauldp]

13. What?! Please explain how lying the country into war is not a conspiracy?

[Ohio Joe]

21. Big difference between the 9/11 and Iraq

This will be the end of this sub-thread for me unless you want to get back to the topic of the thread.

Iraq - Evidence. known then, known now.
9/11 - Zero evidence for inside job then or now.

I am not looking to debate the Iraq war here but rather to understand how truthers, regardless of their particular CT, factor in all of the people that would have to know the truth keeping quiet. If you wish to offer how this fits into your CT, great... other wise you are just trying to hijack the thread and I have no interest in your game, start your own thread on your own topic.

[pauldp]

33. Nonsense. You asked how "bushco" is keeping everyone quiet.

I simply said ask yourself how he got away with Iraq. It is absolutely relevant and your attempt to frame it as unrelated is ridiculous. If Iraq is a "known" conspiracy as you are apparently claiming, and "bushco" got away with it, then the reasons he got away with it - money, political power, influence, fear of violence, character assassination etc. - would apply to a 911 conspiracy as well.

[Ohio Joe]

36. No

One was and is known and has evidence, never a CT. The other has no evidence, just made up shit. What is your particular CT?

[pauldp]

43. So it was a successful conspiracy. How did they get away with it? How is it not relevant?

Regardless of how you want to characterize the evidence of a 911 conspiracy, or whether you think it was a conspiracy or not, the people who do think it was a conspiracy absolutely have a salient point in the fact that "bushco" has gotten away with a massive murderous conspiracy in the case of Iraq. So again, how did they get away with Iraq? Just answer the question and you will have a logical answer to the question you posed in the op. Answer my question and you will have an answer to your question - you may not like the answer but you will have one.

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. you seem to be assiduously missing the point

Ohio Joe's question wasn't how "bushco" "(got) away with" a 9/11 conspiracy. It was how "bushco" is still keeping everyone quiet.

Now, in case you hadn't noticed, we know an awful lot about how the Bush administration got away with the Iraq invasion. That would seem to imply that it didn't have a lot of success in keeping people quiet.

Perhaps you think that the administration has had similarly little success in keeping people quiet about whatever 9/11 conspiracy you believe in. If so, then, well, just how consequential was the conspiracy?

[pauldp]

49. In case you hadn't noticed, there are no investigations planned

into the lead up to the war in Iraq.

If so many people have not been quiet about lies leading to Iraq, where is the compelling evidence to cause an investigation? "Bushco" has certainly kept them quiet enough to squelch any real investigation right? Or maybe the right people just aren't listening?

the truth is that lies have been uncovered about both 911 and Iraq, and people are not quiet.

In the case of Iraq there is of course the Downing street Memo and so on.

In the case of 911 there are among other things, the statements of the senior council to the commission, John Farmer:
" ...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

This is just one example.

Farmer did not keep quiet. Nor did many others associated with the commission. Those lies should have prompted an investigation, as should the lies on Iraq.

Lots of lies for Iraq and 911, people speaking out and no investigations. Now why is that when "bushco" is no longer in power?

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. (ducks goalposts)

Lots of lies for Iraq and 911, people speaking out

Exactly.

This seems to be the basic disconnect, right here.

ETA: Of course, the fact that people are "speaking out" doesn't mean that everyone is saying everything they know. I'm sure they aren't. I'm also sure that not everyone will say everything they know no matter how many investigations ensue. So, now what? What specifically do you want investigated?

[eomer]

68. Was there a conspiracy among the Office of Special Plans to cook the intelligence?

The OSP was created by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith to provide an alternate source of intelligence.

I assume they handpicked a staff for the OSP that would do what they wanted done.

Has that been investigated? (I honestly don't know and don't have time right now to look it up.)

In any event, this would seem to be another good example where a conspiracy could involve a small enough number of people that were all dedicated enough that none of them would necessarily spill the beans.

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. OK, I don't deny the possibility of an enduring conspiracy

And I generally agree that endurance probably is influenced by size and motivation (which could be positive and/or negative). Maybe some other things, too.

I think a lot of the conspiracies conjectured on this board strain credulity, based on the number of people who, it seems, would have to be involved and often on many other grounds. Also, sometimes it's very hard to tell what is being conjectured. One of the fun things about 'talking' with you is that you're willing and able to engage specifics. It's not entirely clear to me how to delineate the disagreement between you and Ohio Joe -- I think the OP has some unstated assumptions -- but it's an interesting discussion.

[greyl]

17. He's not! Good grief, the lies are common knowledge.

Just one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

[pauldp]

44. So how many do you think were " in on it"?

and why have there been no investigations?

[greyl]

18. "100% of the people who were offered the deal, took it."

Thought this was a great place to put a reminder about the awesome article from David Wong at Cracked Magazine.

100% of the people who were offered the deal, took it.

After all, we don't have a single person who has come running into the offices of the New York Times, waving a check and saying, "look! Here's a check for ten million smackers that the government gave me to be silent about 9/11! Can you believe these assholes? Now give me my book deal!"

Not one. Even with the lure of fame and fortune and a chance to go down in history as The Guy Who Saved American Democracy, even with the crushing guilt of seeing thousands of bodies hauled out of the rubble, even seeing the horrors of a nation turned inside out by war and paranoia that was completely manufactured as a gruesome hoax, some of these people having their own friends and families and colleagues die in the attacks, not one turned down the money... or took the money and came forward anyway.

And that, is the conspiracy mindset.

It's not a belief in corrupt leaders. Hell, we all believe in corrupt leaders. It's a belief in a corrupt everybody. It's driving around in a world where every single person you see out of your windshield is utterly bloodthirsty and amoral, all except for you and a few, brave friends. What could make you feel more important than that?

(imagine a photo of Alex Jones and his bullhorn here)

You can see the attraction right away. Most people, to feel special, have to actually do something special. But why not do what these guys do, and just make the rest of the world out to be wretched? Hell, once we've painted everyone else as mindless or murderous, all we have to do to feel superior to them is roll out of bed.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

Original thread: www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x307080

[spooked911]

127. that's not even true

as there were families who turned down the money to litigate the airlines, and family members who are truthers.

It's just a dumb smear against CTists.

[eomer]

23. Take the cases of FBI Agents Tom Wilshire, Dina Corsi, Mark Rossini, and Doug Miller

FBI Agents Tom Wilshire and Dina Corsi conspired to keep the information from the FBI that al Qaeda operatives Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar had entered the U.S. and were apparently still in the U.S. in the summer of 2001. Wilshire and Corsi met and discussed that information on August 22, 2001 (http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0606/final.pdf">OIG report, p. 301-2) and then each of them took various actions to keep the information from being sent to the FBI.

FBI Agents Mark Rossini and Doug Miller heard this information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar because they were on loan from the FBI to the CIA. They knew immediately that the FBI should be notified but were ordered not to by Wilshire.

Post-9/11 Rossini and Miller were eager to talk about this occurrence. Attempts to keep them from talking were effective in the sense that when the information did eventually leak out it was kept quiet enough that it did not become widely known. Here is an article from Congressional Quarterly that provides some details about how their talking (or its effectiveness) was limited:

http://blogs.cqrollcall.com/spytalk/2008/10/fbi-prevents-agents-from-telli.html

The article is also a good starting point in discussing how a coverup such as this one works in general.

After some searching I can't find where any of these four agents have come out and talked more publicly about these incidents after Obama became President. Perhaps Rossini and Miller figure the information has already dribbled out and there's nothing more to say and no way to say it with more effectiveness at this point. Presumably Wilshire and Corsi would like it to go away since they are the ones potentially implicated.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that Wilshire and Corsi conspired to withhold this important information from the FBI. They may have had innocent reasons or they may have been engaged in letting it happen on purpose. Assuming for the sake of argument that it was the latter, your arguments don't seem very strong when looking at this particular instance. I'm not convinced that Wilshire or Corsi would necessarily spill the beans later -- they would be incriminating themselves and my guess is that they would wish for it to be forgotten. Rossini and Miller have talked. So in this particular case it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that those who were in on it would talk, while those who were used by it did try to talk and were mostly prevented from doing so effectively.

[Ohio Joe]

25. So....

Your opinion is that the attacks were a screw up based only on these four agents?

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. can you clarify?

eomer may know exactly what you mean, but I don't.

[eomer]

31. You're off-topic, aren't you?

The question you posed wasn't whether any of us has a theory we believe true and would like to defend. Rather, it was whether all possible theories by necessity involve a large number of actors and whether such a large number of actors (both explicit actors and unwitting actors) could be kept silent after Bush is no longer in the Presidency.

So I presented for your consideration a theory of a conspiracy of two. You seem to believe that such a conspiracy is not possible, or do I misunderstand your claim in the OP? If you do believe it's not possible can you explain why?

The two conspirators (Wilshire and Corsi) acted, according to this theory, because they got subtle but recognizable signals trying to tip them off without coming right out and saying it that letting it happen would be good. They spoke with no one else and they took just the actions that we already know they took from documented evidence. This theory is laid out in this detailed way for the sake of argument, which is a different thing than saying that I've reached a conclusion that it is true. If it at least appears plausible (in other words if it is consistent with all the known facts) then that's all that's relevant in the context of the questions you posed.

So taking then this case and thinking about your questions, there's no reason to think Wilshire and Corsi would eventually talk about such a conspiracy since doing so would be self-incriminating and amount to turning themselves in. In fact it would be perfectly reasonable to think they would deny such a theory even if they were basically caught in the act.

And the people around them who were unwitting participants (Rossini and Miller) did talk. Their ability to get their message out was severely hampered by coverup attempts so while they did talk, the end result was that their message got lost at least from the point of view of the general public. But they did not voluntarily stay silent.

So the opinion I was relaying was not whether or not I believe this particular theory is true but rather that it is an example theory that fits the known facts and that shows that the premises of your OP are not true. It is not necessarily the case that all theories involve a large number of actors (your first premise) and it is not necessarily the case that the actors in such a conspiracy would eventually talk (your second premise).

There are a large number of other plausible theories that range from two conspirators, to a few conspirators, to a handful, to a dozen, to dozens, and on up. And for all of them that involve a relatively small number it is perfectly reasonable to think that the criminals in the conspiracy would not voluntarily turn themselves in. As far as unwitting participants who realized they had been used, there are a decent number of them who have spoken out.

[Ohio Joe]

34. So....

You are making up a theory that is not really a CT, simply people not doing their job. How about going into what your CT is?

[eomer]

42. OK. let me reword it.

Wilshire and Corsi both did more than just not do their job. They didn't merely fail to disseminate information; they both took actions to actively prevent information from being disseminated. And they met with each other and discussed that information just before they both went out and took those actions. So there is circumstantial evidence that they coordinated with each other on preventing the information from being disseminated. So far this is not theory, it is the facts.

The part that is theory is that the reason they took these actions is because they perceived a signal that it would be good to let the attack plot that had been uncovered go ahead and happen. If the theory is correct then the intent of the actions was to facilitate a crime and coordination becomes criminal conspiracy.

That said, I do believe that even a failure to act could amount to participation in a criminal conspiracy in some circumstances (and I mean this as a layperson's opinion, not a legal one as I am not a lawyer).

[Ohio Joe]

80. That still has nothing to do with what I'm asking

If you do not want to answer my original question, thats fine, don't but I really don't want to play the game of "lets invent a conspiracy that no one believes in to make the OP wrong". How about sticking to what you do actually believe?

I find it odd that truthers do not like to look at this question, not a single one has tried to answer this question honestly yet.

[OnTheOtherHand]

91. FWIW I think the original q was ambiguous

I made a point similar to yours a few minutes later (sorry, didn't see your post) -- but I don't think it's that eomer is playing a game or trying to avoid honestly answering your original question.

After all, your OP begins with "Regardless of your particular CT." It might be obvious to you that people were supposed to respond by explaining their "particular CT" (which might be something they firmly believe in, something they strongly suspect, or even something they wish they could rule out but don't feel they can). But "regardless" implies that it really doesn't matter.

For that matter, maybe I'm still missing the precise point of the OP.

At any rate, I don't want to get stuck at the level of abstract debating points, any more than you do. eomer seems to find Wilshire and Corsi's conduct much more suspicious than I do, and I haven't figured out yet whether that's because he understands part of the story that I'm missing, or mostly has to do with differences in our priors.

[eomer]

102. I think

that the point I would want to make about the conduct of Wilshire and Corsi (and the same point applies to other people and their conduct) is that it is suspicious enough. Call them "persons of interest". It makes no sense to state our final conclusions when we haven't even followed the lead and seen what evidence exists yet. All we should decide at this stage is whether it is a promising lead, which I think it definitely is.

[OnTheOtherHand]

104. well, y'know, "suspicious enough" for what?

Of course I agree that it doesn't make sense to state final conclusions before marshaling the evidence. But if you were working for a U.S. Attorney and trying to convince him or her to put resources into investigating Wilshire and Corsi (or mutatis mutandis for anyone else making a decision about resource allocation), you'd probably have to say something more than that you think they should be considered persons of interest and there is a promising lead.

[eomer]

106. Well, my cynical point of view is

that they seem to be able to investigate whatever they want to, when they want to.

For example, I seem to recall that Eliot Spitzer was investigated without any prior justification. Governor Sielgelman seems to be that kind of a case also, from a vague recollection. This is off the top of my head and perhaps would be interesting to look into, but not so on-topic as to do it now.

Because the bottom line is that it hasn't been investigated and so I don't yet know whether to believe it or not. If it can never be or will never be investigated then it will remain in that state. I'll remain suspicious about it (I don't have to follow any rules).

[OnTheOtherHand]

107. perhaps somewhat beside the point

My point wasn't to assert or to imply that US Attorneys make all their decisions based on justice or rationality. I'm sure they don't at the best of times, and the last decade has been far from the best of times. But regardless of whom you are trying to persuade, some arguments are likely to be more persuasive than others.

Because the bottom line is that it hasn't been investigated and so I don't yet know whether to believe it or not. If it can never be or will never be investigated then it will remain in that state. I'll remain suspicious about it (I don't have to follow any rules).

A non sequitur by means of possible partial analogy:

No one has investigated whether our superintendent of schools here really did call a business manager into his office to try to pressure him into paying apparent double-dips to a police detective. (The business manager didn't approve the payments; the detective seems to have moved on to Plan B: double-billing the city and the school district so neither one would notice.) The business manager says the meeting happened; the superintendent says that he has no recollection of it. I have an opinion -- provisional, of course. I think the business manager is telling it more or less straight.

I also have an opinion about the theories I've heard that the superintendent had some kind of deal with the detective: I doubt it. The amounts involved would have been chump change to the superintendent. I think the detective went to the superintendent and played indignant martyr, and the superintendent fell for it. Embarrassing, but not really that important. Frankly, even if the superintendent has no recollection of such a meeting, I wish he had apologized for his lapse in judgment, just so we could all focus on trying to minimize the catastrophic layoffs. Of all the things around here that ought to be investigated, I'd say this is way down the list. And, yes, people can be as suspicious of the superintendent as they like. But if someone knows of a reason why I should be more suspicious than I am, I hope he or she will make that reason known.

That's about where I am with Wilshire and Corsi. They'll probably never be formally investigated regardless of what either of us thinks. But, for what it's worth, from what I know about them, I'm just not "feeling" involvement in any kind of *IHOP plot. And plumbing the depths of whatever mere stupidities they may have perpetrated is not that important to me. I've seen more than enough pre-9/11 stupidity to go around.

[eomer]

93. In the OP you said: "Regardless of your particular CT..."

...now you're insisting that I stick to my particular CT, which of course is the opposite.

Your OP makes the claim that every possible CT ("regardless of your particular CT") will involve a large number of conspirators. I say that such a claim is obviously false. There are many possible CTs that involve as few as two people (the minimum required to call it a conspiracy).

And in fact I don't have a particular theory that I believe. At this stage when no serious investigation has been done into many of the theories, it is not logical to choose one theory at random and believe it, especially since the focus in your question is on how many people were involved, which is something we just don't know. On most aspects of the attack and its planning we have some ideas about some of the participants but we definitely don't know all of the participants -- either who they were or how many.

As an example, we know that funds were wired to Mohamed Atta in the summer of 2000 by an operative. The evidence seems to show that ISI head General Ahmad directed the operative to transfer funds but we don't know which or how many other conspirators were involved in that act. Ahmad would most likely have done so under someone else's instigation or coordination. That someone else could have been Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, but perhaps not. Maybe it was some person or faction of the CIA. Or maybe it was both; perhaps Grossman did it in coordination with a faction of the CIA. Or it could be that UBL coordinated with Ahmad. But then UBL may himself have been working with a faction of the CIA. All these theories are extant in my opinion until a real investigation starts digging into these details. It wouldn't be logical to just pick one of these various theories about who was behind it and believe it with no basis.

[deconstruct911]

24. IMO the insider trading was the most significant investigation.....

Everyone was "deputized"

[Ohio Joe]

26. What does that have to do with my question?

Care to elaborate?

[deconstruct911]

28. ...

You asked how is Bush still keeping them quiet, right? The SEC's action (SEC chairman 2001-03 was appointed by Bush) probably still keeps those individuals from discussing what they know about those investigations.

[LARED]

29. 'probably still keeps those individuals from discussing what they know '

Really?

What is that speculation bases upon?

What sort of hold do you think Bush's appointed SEC chairmen can possibly have over the people involved in the investigation.

[deconstruct911]

30. LARED, who was in charge of the insider trading investigation?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/10/19/BU142745.DTL#ixzz1CSHjc7dJ

[LARED]

46. So what?

I have completely missed your point if there was one.

[Ohio Joe]

37. So....

The only part of 9/11 you feel is a cover-up is insider trading and that the SEC manages to keep it quiet?

[deconstruct911]

41. So....

why did you ask me what my post had to do with your OP (even though it was clear as day) when you are the one derailing it the most?

[hack89]

39. So the new SEC chairman is powerless to do anything about this?

or is she part of the cover up

[deconstruct911]

40. Post 30

She would also have a hard time since the SEC no longer has any records....

[hack89]

45. So the SEC deliberately expanded the number of potential whistle blowers?

by involving private firms to track down financial records? That doesn't make a whole lot sense.

And where do you get this notion that the SEC no longer has any records?

[deconstruct911]

47. Now your're simply ignoring the first post I made (24)

However I will address both questions.

"The proposed system, which would go into effect immediately, effectively deputizes hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.

SEC spokesman John Heine told The Chronicle that the agency had thought very carefully about the step it took."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/10/19/BU142745.DTL#ixzz1FC50pqc7


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=288949&mesg_id=288949

[hack89]

50. No I did not ignore it.

I guess I don't understand how adding thousands of people to a cover up makes a lot of sense. Do you believe that the phrase "deputizes" has particular significance? If so, what do you think deputize means in this context.

[deconstruct911]

71. The significance

was taking everyone with any knowledge of the investigation and making it impossible for them to disclose any evidence or details that aren't disclosed by the SEC/FBI.

[LARED]

72. Wow. just wow

Exactly how did that happen?

[deconstruct911]

74. Wow what? Please elaborate.....

what's surprising about individuals deputized in a national security case and thereby prevented from saying what they know....

[LARED]

76. Why would being deputized

in a national security case prevent one from saying what they know?

[LARED]

109. Crickets? nt

[deconstruct911]

119. I'm referring to an investigation that involves National Security.....

if the investigation involved national security ie:"classified information" how could deputized individuals in that investigation release what they know if it's classified?

Here is your MFR:
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00269.pdf

Not only is there classified information in that memorandum , it is also riddled with assertions that are not factually verified, I even found one irrefutable omission.

Do you actually think they involved hundreds/thousands of individuals in a N.S. investigation and allowed them to release evidence to the public? Is that really how it works? If they were not deputized in the investigation, I could believe they might release publicly what they know, even if the SEC considered that classified, if they so wished. Also the SEC doesn't comment on ongoing investigation so deputized individuals would be bound to the same rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

122. I think we need to rewind to posts #50/71

Are you saying that your understanding of the phrase "effectively deputizes" is that the companies aren't allowed to release any information that the SEC considers classified, even if the companies had it first?

Do you have any evidence to support that understanding -- or whatever your understanding is? If so, what is it? At the risk of sounding facetious, it seems like you may be hearkening back to an old Western movie, more than anything relevant to the SEC.

Here's something your source actually says:

...those chosen as point people would eventually receive access to a "control list" containing confidential information about transactions, individuals, relationships and entities identified by the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies in the probe.

They will then be asked to check their firms' records to determine what information they have about the names and transactions identified.

"Because the control list contains confidential information," the SEC said, "we ask that you disseminate the information within your institution only on a need-to-know basis."

OK, so the SEC asks the point people not to broadcast the control list information. That seems to leave us back where hack said: the SEC is sharing confidential information and asking people not to share it, which would seem to make it harder -- not easier -- to maintain a cover-up.

If we're all missing something, what is it?

[LARED]

124. So if I understand

You believe that because the some workers were referred to as being deputized in an news article when asked to help the SEC investigate potential security fraud related to the 9/11 attacks, you believe they are required to be silent about everything they know? Do you have any evidence that they were restricted from divulging any and all information they discovered?

Other than the article using the word deputized you have no evidence they were to treat the information they provided as a matter of national security forever. Yes?

Then you must also believe that the information they provided was meaningful to them. In other words the information was in a form that would be easily recognizable as some sort of MIHOP or LIHOP?

[SDuderstadt]

32. For me...

that weekly check I get from the NWO keeps my lips sealed tightly. That and the red laser dot they keep trained on my forehead.

[eomer]

51. Here's another theory.

It is known that the head of the Pakistani ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmed directed an operative to wire funds to Mohammed Atta in the summer of 2001, just prior to 9/11.

Meanwhile, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman had a working relationship with General Ahmed and is known to have met with him in the months before 9/11.

So the conspiracy theory here is that Grossman was the person who instigated General Ahmed's funding of 9/11 through Atta.

This theory adds only one additional person, Grossman, to a conspiracy that we already know for a fact occurred. So it doesn't by necessity involve a large number of people as you assert.

Regarding your second claim that conspirators would have fessed up by now, is Grossman the type of person who would have done so? He is also known to have been taking bribes to assist in the stealing of American nuclear secrets by spies from Pakistan and other countries. If he is a person who can do that then obviously he has no conscience that would cause him to turn himself in as one of the 9/11 conspirators.

Grossman associated with other people who apparently share his lack of scruples and were involved in various treasonous and corrupt activities. We can obviously widen the number involved in the conspiracy theory without necessarily hitting upon someone with a conscience.

So there are certainly conspiracy theories that don't involve large numbers of conspirators and that would not necessarily involve anyone with a conscience.

[SDuderstadt]

52. "It is known...."

Umm, not really:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/ISI_funding_of_the_attacks

[eomer]

56. I think it is known, but that's not the point of this topic.

On the subject of whether it is known that Ahmad directed the money to be wired:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192618&mesg_id=192618

But in any event the topic is whether all conspiracy theories must by necessity involve a large number of people and would in turn necessarily come out because someone would talk. So finding an example of a theory that merely might be true is good enough for this discussion.

[BeFree]

61. Bush Cheney testimony

IS being kept quiet. How does bushco do that is the best question.

[SDuderstadt]

62. It doesn't matter whether you "think"...

it is "known". It's far from a settled matter.

[eomer]

63. Of course it's the reasons that caused me to think that that matter,

which are in the DU thread I linked to.

Address those reasons substantively if you'd like to.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Dude...

when you have concrete, conclusive proof of something, please let us know.

[OnTheOtherHand]

81. umm, does this make any sense?

After wading through the linked articles for a while, I agree with SDuderstadt that you're claiming as "known" some things that aren't really known.

(As someone pointed out, "just prior to 9/11" is pretty damn late to be bankrolling the attacks. I think that is a big reason why Hamden Rice inclined toward a 2000 date. Of course, Grossman didn't become undersecretary until late March 2001, although I suppose he could have had this hypothetical discussion with Ahmed while he was with the Foreign Service. Ahmed's involvement is a separate issue.)

My bigger concern is that this is feeling like a "God of the gaps" approach -- which probably has something to do with the context created by the OP, of course. The conspiracies that are hardest to rule out are the ones that do little if any explanatory work, arguably less than none. That's how I feel about the controlled demolition stuff. This bothers me more, in a way, because I'm leery of suggesting that someone is complicit in mass murder primarily on the basis that it would satisfy the formal constraints implied by some post.

[rschop]

64. re:How is "bushco" still keeping everyone quiet?

SIMPLE!

According to the CIA Inspector General, 50-60 people at the CIA knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi, and at the FBI I would estimate that only another 20-30 people were involved. While I am actually aware of only the names of 15 people at the FBI who were aware of what took place between the FBI and the CIA, I assume that the number of people actually involved would be 2 X this number. The people who are withholding this information from the Americans people and the various investigations are doing this to keep from being fired, as was the case with Colleen Rowley or have been ordered by the FBI to keep their mouth shut, even being ordered to commit criminal obstruction, as in the case of FBI Agent Doug Miller, or they are afraid of losing their pension, which after 15-20 years would be substantial.

Not all of the FBI agents withholding information are the bad guys, some wanted to break FBI rules and investigation Mihdhar and Hazmi or Zacarias Moussaoui, but they were threatened by FBI HQ not only with retaliation but even immediate dismissal if they did.

So the group hiding this information is fairly small maybe only 100 people or less.

The current administration is not pursuing criminal indictments of these people according to Obama because they did not want to go back and prosecute crimes in the past. They know if they did prosecute these criminals the Republicans would be even more inclined to obstruct Obama’s agenda.

In effect, the current administration said we won't prosecute the criminals who had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost three thousand people, some of who may have been in the White House, but our pro quid pro is then you should support our legislative agenda.

[BeFree]

66. "Impeachment is off the table"

Can you believe some people? They think backroom deals are never done? That you scratch my back.... isn't how 'things' are kept quiet?

Well the OP sure has a lot of new, real life things to consider, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

77. Book sales slow...

dude?

[Ohio Joe]

83. Thats is not exactly right

"The current administration is not pursuing criminal indictments of these people according to Obama because they did not want to go back and prosecute crimes in the past."

This was said in relation to investigating torture and had nothing to do with 9/11.

Also, Rowley was not fired, she retired.

As for Miller, he wanted to talk about the old FBI/CIA rivalries on NOVA but they did not want him to as to prevent a return of bad blood, that is not exactly "being ordered to commit criminal obstruction".

So your theory involves 100 people or less all at either the CIA or FBI and does not include an all powerfull "bushco"?. No CD? No planes is off the table? Everything happened as we were told except that some people at CIA/FBI knew in advance?

Assuming that is correct and I am understanding you correctly... Do you really think not one of them has gotten the idea that "Hey! If a bunch of us come forward together, it would be far harder to screw us?"

[eomer]

103. That's not exactly right either.

Miller did not want "to talk about the old FBI/ CIA rivalries on NOVA". He wanted to describe specific events that were part of the 9/11 runup. The rivalries thing was just an excuse the FBI ginned up to prevent him from telling what happened.

[rschop]

105. re: "Thats is not exactly right," Yes it is!

In reply yo your statment that "Thats is not exactly right":

"The current administration is not pursuing criminal indictments of these people according to Obama because they did not want to go back and prosecute crimes in the past."

Your answer:

This was said in relation to investigating torture and had nothing to do with 9/11.

There is no way to know for sure, but it appears this was in relation to all crimes in the prior administration.

"Also, Rowley was not fired, she retired."

I had a sit down interview under oath in July 2004 in the Minneapolis FBI office, with Coleen Rowley and she told me the FBI had already told her she was out of the door. She told me that she had just been demoted from GS 15 to GS 13 and then told to resign. When you are told to resign, you are fired! It is that simple.

"As for Miller, he wanted to talk about the old FBI/CIA rivalries on NOVA but they did not want him to as to prevent a return of bad blood, that is not exactly "being ordered to commit criminal obstruction".

Miller told Bamford he had been ordered by the FBI HQ to keep his mouth shut when talking to FBI criminal investigators who worked for the DOJ IG when it came to talking about why his CIR on Mihdhar was not sent to the FBI. In my opinion he did not know anything any way, but when the FBI told Miller to keep his mouth shut and claim he could not remember this cable, it was clearly criminally obstruction of the DOJ IG investigation.

"So your theory involves 100 people or less all at either the CIA or FBI and does not include an all powerful "bushco"?. No CD? No planes is off the table? Everything happened as we were told except that some people at CIA/FBI knew in advance?

Assuming that is correct and I am understanding you correctly... Do you really think not one of them has gotten the idea that "Hey! If a bunch of us come forward together, it would be far harder to screw us?"

This has not happened so far. First any attempt to get a number of these people together would set off all kinds of alarm bells in the very powerful people who had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place, and then had covered this up. Second all of these people realize that they would be taking on a now very large number of people who have been trying to keep this secret, and that they would be smeared for years before they ever got anywhere with their version of the facts. In the mean time they would be out of a job with no pension, and be black balled by those who were at the FBI HQ and the CIA and all of the people who had taken part in covering this up.

Imagine how powerful the people are who had covered this up. First they delayed the investigation on 9/11 as long as possible, by several years, then they refused to fund the 9/11 Commission beyond $3 million dollars at first. They held many public hearings, which had to be very carefully orchestrated to hide the information that the CIA and FBI HQ had intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11. And how did they do this. By hiding many parts of the story from the American people, enough detail so the American people could never see the big picture. So what did they hide?:

The meeting at the White House in July 10, 2001 between George Tenet, Cofer Black, and Richard Blee and Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke, a meeting where Tenet told Rice that a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place that would kill thousands of Americans.

The fact that Tenet had also briefed Ashcroft and Rumsfeld on this same information.

The name Ali Soufan, FBI agent on the Cole bombing was keep secret and his numerous official requests to the FBI Director Louis Freeh and to the CIA for information that the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash and any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur. This was to hide the fact that when the Freeh and the CIA told Soufan that they none of this information, they were all committing the crime of criminal obstruction of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors. These investigations could turn criminal obstruction into “they just did not share information”.

The name Richard Blee, Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit and the CIA Rendition unit, so no investigation would even know who Blee was to keep him from testifying on anything.

The fact that the CIA did not give the information on Mihdhar’s multi-entry visa for the US, for almost 21 months for no reason.

The fact that Tom Wilshire had known since May 15, 2001 that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. In spite of the fact that Wilshire was number two in the ITOS unit, the one FBI HQ unit in charge of all FBI criminal investigations in the world of al Qaeda terrorists, he never gives this information to FBI Cole bombing investigator Steve Bongardt, in spite of the fact that on August 22, 200 he is told that Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US and knows immediately that Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US for no other reason than to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans. His position was played down, information of what he was aware of was down played, even the fact that he had been moved over to the FBI from the CIA was down played down so no one would realize that he had been moved to the FBI to spy on the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

The fact that Wilshire set up the meeting on June 11, 2001 with the CIA, FBI HQ and FBI Cole investigators for no other reason than to find out what the FBI Cole investigators knew about the Kuala Lumpur meeting was kept secret. The CIA wanted to know if these investigators had found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting with Walid Bin Attash planning the Cole bombing.

Wilshire's email on July 5, 2001 and on July 23, 2001 back to his CTC managers, Blee, Black and Tenet that connected the al Qaeda terroroists Mihdhar and Hazmi to the wanings the CIA had been recieving of a massive al Qaeda atatck, and his specific connection of Mihdar to this attack. Both of these emails were hiden from the American people, but it clear that the 9/11 Commission had both of these emails.

The criminal actions by Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when it was illegal to do so, and when the CIA and FBI HQ knew that this would result in allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans.

The fact that the CIA IG report still has never been released, that many of the 9/11 Commission investigation documents are still secret and that none of the high value al Qaeda terrorists have ever been prosecuted in court shows how powerful these people still are even 10 years after the attacks on 9/11, and that there are still today many secrets that these powerful people want to be remain secret.

[rschop]

108. KICK!

[BeFree]

75. Media thread link

Maybe using the media to keep things quiet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=521142&mesg_id=521142

[Ohio Joe]

84. So people are talking but the media is just not showing it?

And none of them can figure out how to contact someone in the truth movement?

[Nathan_Hale]

110. Easy....

Duty, Honor, Country.

It kept thousands from talking about the Manhattan project.

Those Generals (and the dozens involved in the planning development) who planned Operation Northwoods didn't talk about it publicly, did they?

What a dumb question...

[SDuderstadt]

111. The Manhattan Project did not involve...

murdering 3,000 of their fellow citizens, dude.

Dumb post.

[Nathan_Hale]

112. No...

130,000 of someone else's citizens!

[SDuderstadt]

113. Which is my point...

Duh.

[Nathan_Hale]

114. Your point....

...is the strawman that BUSHCO did it. LOL

[SDuderstadt]

115. I have no idea what...

you are babbling about, dude.

Of course, that's hardly unusual.

[OnTheOtherHand]

116. oh, I CERTAINLY think you should accept full responsibility

for "the strawman that BUSHCO did it." (Whatever, in this context, "it" is.)

That's every bit as obvious as the fact that people would cover up complicity in an attack that killed thousands of Americans because of "Duty, Honor, Country." Sort of like the Manhattan Project. If you disregard the purpose of the project, the ultimate target of the bombs, and the Smyth Report. And probably a few other things I haven't thought of yet because my head exploded a few posts back.

[SDuderstadt]

117. I don't think even...

NH has the slightest idea what he's babbling about, either.

[WeAreAmerica]

118. Its easy

By terrorizing them.

[deconstruct911]

120. Exactly

they use fear to get them to participate with the OCT.

It kept their asses out of jail with the BCCI scandal.

[deconstruct911]

121. BTW

Welcome to the dungeon.

[Ohio Joe]

123. I see....

And what, may I ask, is your CT? How many people are "bushco" terrorizing and how are they doing it?

[WeAreAmerica]

133. Obviously you are enthralled with Bush.

Heres a nugget for you to chew on. About 6 months ago I was at a hair salon wait to get my hair cut. So, while waiting I picked up a " GQ " magazine and what do you know , there was an article on Conan about him finally being free of his contract and how he can now retire ,blah,blah,blah. But in that same article...he had written a poem about his love for SATAN. Well, within one month of that article ( what do you know ) George W. Bush was on the " Conan O'Brien show making jokes and admitting to endorsing water boarding ( that if he had done so during his presidency he would have surely been impeached ) and also put a plug in for his brother Jeb for President.

[greyl]

125. Why do Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, Korey Rowe,

Jason Bermas, Neils Harrit, Dr. Judy Wood, etc., behave as though they're totally unafraid of the "terrorism" you so casually refer to?

Plus, why aren't they victims of said terrorism, i.e. dead?

[WeAreAmerica]

126. Iv'e finally figured it out !

George W. Bush is an Oompa Doompa from " Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory ".

[spooked911]

128. strawman argument, and you should know it

it's a very silly question, long ago answered

[WeAreAmerica]

129. Concerning sept.. 11th

What was the tallest building after the attacks ? The " EMPIRE State Building " What was the previous name of New York New York...Gotham.
1 year to the day in Manhattan the pic lotto numbers were 911. Who picked it to win.

[zappaman]

130. What is strawman about it?

Seriously, if the Bush Administration did 9/11, then why has no one spoken?
If I knew something, I could cash in for a big payday by revealing the biggest secret/scandal in US history!
Are you saying the Bush administration had nothing to do with the attack and that's why it's a silly question/
If so, then I agree!

[JackRiddler]

131. How is "bushco" still operating Guantanamo, keeping an assassination list, doing warrantless...

searches, abusing the classification of documents even more than before, imprisoning whistleblowers, letting gangsters walk free after frauds in the hundreds of billions of dollars, maintaining the same wars, adding new wars, and so on?

You'd think there was a system, a kind of permanent policy that just switches politicians for show and gives way on a few showboat issues to coverup the permanence of the national security state. Golly!

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.