<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I do not have sufficient information to make this
judgment. However, I believe it was a gross failure of the intelligence
system if, in fact, they didn't have sufficient information and the ability to
process and analyze it with dispatch to avert 9/11.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ophite@gmail.com href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">Andreas Schou</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:52
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Journal of 9/11
Studies: Peer Reviewed WorkRaising Questions</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Wayne --<BR><BR>I'm explaining why only incompetence, and not
malice, is required.<BR>With the information Bush had before 9/11, I'm not
sure what an<BR>appropriate response would have been. Are you sure?<BR><BR>--
ACS<BR><BR>On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Art Deco <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> Changing
the subject is not arguing the point at issue.<BR>><BR>>
W.<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> From: Andreas
Schou<BR>> To: Ted Moffett<BR>> Cc: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; Gier, Nicholas
; Garrett Clevenger<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:38 PM<BR>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Journal of 9/11 Studies: Peer Reviewed
WorkRaising<BR>> Questions<BR>> Ted --<BR>><BR>> Let's say you
have a sheet of paper that says "Bin Laden Determined to<BR>> Strike in
US." You know that this is true. You have access to the full<BR>> might of
the American military, police, and intelligence apparatus.<BR>> What do you
do in response?<BR>><BR>> -- ACS<BR>><BR>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at
3:36 PM, Ted Moffett <<A
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>> OK. The 9/11 conspiracy speculations are "just wild
theories."<BR>>><BR>>> Anyway, will you acknowledge that the
following facts, especially the<BR>>> August<BR>>> 6, 2001
briefing to President Bush, which warned "Bin Laden Determined to<BR>>>
Strike in US" are not wild theories, but well verified facts? And
that<BR>>> Condoleezza Rice's comments made post 9/11 referenced below,
either<BR>>> indicate<BR>>> she was woefully ignorant on these
issues, which I strongly doubt, or she<BR>>> was trying to whitewash
Bush administration failures regarding 9/11?<BR>>><BR>>>
------------------------------------------<BR>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted
Moffett<BR>>><BR>>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Ted Moffett
<<A href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>> I offered well documented facts that
the Bush administration knew that<BR>>>> "Bin Laden determined to
strike in US," from an August 6, 2001 briefing<BR>>>> (here is a
partial transcript:<BR>>>> <A
href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/">http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/</A>
), and that it<BR>>>> was<BR>>>> known that using commercial
jets as weapons was a potential tactic,<BR>>>>
despite<BR>>>> rather incredible statements from National Security
Advisor Condoleezza<BR>>>> Rice<BR>>>> post 9/11 that there
was "nothing to suggest" the 9/11 style attacks were<BR>>>> likely.
Condoleezza Rice was/is too intelligent and well educated to
make<BR>>>> this statement, so I suspect she was engaging in public
relations<BR>>>> propaganda<BR>>>> to whitewash Bush
administration failures regarding 9/11. Note the<BR>>>>
comment<BR>>>> in the August 6 briefing that mentions the prior World
Trade Center<BR>>>> attack,<BR>>>> as an example of what Bin
Laden intended. How difficult could it be to<BR>>>> predict that
finishing the job of the prior World Trade Center attack, to<BR>>>>
do<BR>>>> major damage to the building(s), would be a likely terror
plot?<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> <A
href="http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_post-9/11_world=denials&timeline=complete_911_timeline">http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_post-9/11_world=denials&timeline=complete_911_timeline</A><BR>>>><BR>>>>
From website immediately above:<BR>>>><BR>>>> May 16, 2002:
Nobody Predicted 9/11-Style Attacks, Says Condoleezza
Rice<BR>>>><BR>>>> National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice states, “I don’t think anybody<BR>>>> could have predicted that
these people would take an airplane and slam it<BR>>>> into the World
Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the<BR>>>>
Pentagon,<BR>>>> that they would try to use an airplane as a
missile,” adding that “even<BR>>>> in<BR>>>> retrospect”
there was “nothing” to suggest that. [White House, 5/16/2002]<BR>>>>
Contradicting Rice’s claims, former CIA Deputy Director John
Gannon<BR>>>> acknowledges that such a scenario has long been taken
seriously by US<BR>>>> intelligence: “If you ask anybody could
terrorists convert a plane into a<BR>>>> missile? [N]obody would have
ruled that out.” Rice also states, “The<BR>>>> overwhelming bulk of
the evidence was that this was an attack that was<BR>>>> likely to
take place overseas.” [MSNBC, 5/17/2002] Slate awards Rice the<BR>>>>
“Whopper of the Week” when the title of Bush’s August 6 briefing
is<BR>>>> revealed: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” [Slate,
5/23/2002] Rice<BR>>>> later will concede that “somebody did imagine
it” but will say she did<BR>>>> not<BR>>>> know about such
intelligence until well after this conference.<BR>>>>
[Associated<BR>>>> Press, 9/21/2002]<BR>>>><BR>>>>
------------------------------------------<BR>>>> Vision2020 Post:
Ted Moffett<BR>>>><BR>>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:46 AM,
lfalen <<A href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> I question that they are well
documented facts. There may very well be<BR>>>>> those that would
have liked it to occur.<BR>>>>> That does not mean any on in
authority allowed it to happen. You usually<BR>>>>> rely on
science. You should know that you can't prove a negative.<BR>>>>>
Roger<BR>>>>> -----Original message-----<BR>>>>> From:
Ted Moffett <A
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</A><BR>>>>>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:03:04 -0700<BR>>>>> To: lfalen <A
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A><BR>>>>>
Subject: Re: Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max
Cleland:<BR>>>>> "thisgovernmentknew a whole lot more about these
terrorists before<BR>>>>> September<BR>>>>>
11<BR>>>>> than it has ever
admitted...."<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> > There are well
documented facts, offered in the sources I referenced,<BR>>>>>
> that<BR>>>>> > raise serious questions about the actions
(or non-actions) of US<BR>>>>> > agents<BR>>>>>
> during the Bush administration, regarding why more was not done
to<BR>>>>> > stop<BR>>>>> >
the<BR>>>>> > 9/11 attacks. To label these questions
"ridiculous," is to dismiss<BR>>>>> > these<BR>>>>>
> important facts as though you have certainty that there were no
agents<BR>>>>> > of<BR>>>>> > the US who wished
to exploit a terror attack against the US to pursue<BR>>>>> >
the<BR>>>>> > agenda of the "Project for the New American
Century." As for proof, I<BR>>>>> > did<BR>>>>>
> not claim to have *proof* that the 9/11 attacks were "allowed"
to<BR>>>>> > happen.<BR>>>>> > But consider,
there is no proof that I am aware of, that there was not<BR>>>>>
> complicity of US agents to allow 9/11 to happen, to exploit a
terror<BR>>>>> > attack,<BR>>>>> > a "new Pearl
Harbor," to push for the expansion of US military power<BR>>>>>
> as<BR>>>>> > described at the document at the website
below. Or can you offer such<BR>>>>> > proof? If not, the
question remains open.<BR>>>>> ><BR>>>>> >
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy,<BR>>>>> > Forces and
Resources for a New Century" September 2000:<BR>>>>>
><BR>>>>> > <A
href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf">http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf</A><BR>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------<BR>>>>> >
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<BR>>>>> ><BR>>>>> >
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:49 PM, lfalen <<A
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>>>> ><BR>>>>> > > There has many
books written,lawsuits and movies about the Warren<BR>>>>> >
> Commission also. Anybody can write a book speculating
on<BR>>>>> > > conspiracies. This<BR>>>>> >
> is not proof of anything.<BR>>>>> > >
Roger<BR>>>>> > > -----Original
message-----<BR>>>>> > > From: Ted Moffett <A
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</A><BR>>>>>
> > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:10:31 -0700<BR>>>>> > >
To: lfalen <A
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A><BR>>>>>
> > Subject: Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max Cleland:
"this<BR>>>>> > > governmentknew a whole lot more about
these terrorists before<BR>>>>> > > September
11<BR>>>>> > > than it has<BR>>>>> > >
ever admitted...."<BR>>>>> > ><BR>>>>> > >
> If there was an effort to exploit a pending terror attack, a
"new<BR>>>>> > > Pearl<BR>>>>> > > >
Harbor,"<BR>>>>> > > > to pursue an agenda of expansion
of US military power (as outlined<BR>>>>> > > >
by<BR>>>>> > > "The<BR>>>>> > > >
Project for the New American Century" neo-cons (<BR>>>>> > >
> <A
href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf">http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf</A><BR>>>>>
> > > ), the<BR>>>>> > > > efforts would have
been black-ops intelligence, with multiple<BR>>>>> > > >
layers of<BR>>>>> > > > plausible tenability and secrecy
such an effort would demand. And<BR>>>>> > > >
if<BR>>>>> > > anyone<BR>>>>> > > >
thinks the US does not engage in black-ops, that are guarded
with<BR>>>>> > > > the<BR>>>>> > >
utmost<BR>>>>> > > > secrecy, I have some ocean front
property for sale in Utah at a<BR>>>>> > > >
bargain<BR>>>>> > > > price.<BR>>>>> >
> ><BR>>>>> > > > I am not basing my concerns
regarding questioning the actions of<BR>>>>> > > >
US<BR>>>>> > > agents<BR>>>>> > > >
before 9/11 and after on wild speculation or fringe
conspiracy<BR>>>>> > > > theories.<BR>>>>>
> > ><BR>>>>> > > > Credible well researched
investigations into the 9/11 Commission<BR>>>>> > > >
uncover<BR>>>>> > > > numerous very serious problems with
their conclusions. Before<BR>>>>> > > >
closing<BR>>>>> > > your<BR>>>>> > > >
mind, you might want to do more reading:<BR>>>>> > >
><BR>>>>> > > > <A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/books/04thom.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/books/04thom.html</A><BR>>>>>
> > ><BR>>>>> > > > THE
COMMISSION<BR>>>>> > > ><BR>>>>> > >
> The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission<BR>>>>> >
> ><BR>>>>> > > > By Philip
Shenon<BR>>>>> > > ><BR>>>>> > > >
----------------------------------<BR>>>>> > >
><BR>>>>> > > > <A
href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080234">http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080234</A><BR>>>>>
> > > Whitewash as public service:<BR>>>>> > > >
How *The 9/11 Commission Report* defrauds the nation<BR>>>>> >
> ><BR>>>>> > > > *By Benjamin
DeMott<BR>>>>> > > > <<A
href="http://www.harpers.org/subjects/BenjaminDeMott">http://www.harpers.org/subjects/BenjaminDeMott</A>>*<BR>>>>>
> > ><BR>>>>> > > >
*----------------------------------------*<BR>>>>> > >
><BR>>>>> > > > <A
href="http://911pft.com/pft/catalog/In-Their-Own-Words-p-10.html">http://911pft.com/pft/catalog/In-Their-Own-Words-p-10.html</A><BR>>>>>
> > ><BR>>>>> > > > In late 2006, the movie 9/11
Press For Truth became a worldwide<BR>>>>> > >
underground<BR>>>>> > > > hit. It exposed the story of
the "Jersey Girls" and their allies<BR>>>>> > > >
--<BR>>>>> > > > the<BR>>>>> > >
9/11<BR>>>>> > > > families who had fought for the
Commission but ultimately failed<BR>>>>> > > >
in<BR>>>>> > > seeing<BR>>>>> > > > 70%
of their questions answered.<BR>>>>> > >
><BR>>>>> > > > A unique, balanced look at a diverse
group of topics includes:<BR>>>>> > >
><BR>>>>> > > > - Top officials' whereabouts and
changing stories on the day of<BR>>>>> > > >
9/11<BR>>>>> > > > - Insider trading before the
attacks<BR>>>>> > > > - War games coinciding with Sept.
11th<BR>>>>> > > > - A confrontation between the families
and FBI Director Mueller<BR>>>>> > > > - British reports
that some of the hijackers named by the FBI<BR>>>>> > > >
are<BR>>>>> > > simply<BR>>>>> > > >
wrong<BR>>>>> > > > - Government whistleblowers' calls
for accountability<BR>>>>> > > > - The FBI informant who
lived with 2 of the hijackers<BR>>>>> > > > - A Defense
Department program that identified 4 hijackers in<BR>>>>> >
> > 2000<BR>>>>> > > > - The families' push to
receive the Pentagon crash tapes<BR>>>>> > > > - Bin
Laden extradition negotiations after 9/11<BR>>>>> > > > -
The Project For the New American Century<BR>>>>> > >
><BR>>>>> > > > ----------------<BR>>>>>
> > > <A
href="http://www.911truth.org/downloads/9-11_coverup_booklet.pdf">http://www.911truth.org/downloads/9-11_coverup_booklet.pdf</A><BR>>>>>
> > ><BR>>>>> > > > Former 9/11 commissioner and
Senator Max Cleland attacked his own<BR>>>>> > >
commission<BR>>>>> > > > after the other members cut a
deal to accept highly limited access<BR>>>>> > > > to
CIA<BR>>>>> > > > reports to the White House that may
indicate advance knowledge of<BR>>>>> > > >
the<BR>>>>> > > > attacks on the part of the Bush
administration. "This is a scam,"<BR>>>>> > > >
Cleland<BR>>>>> > > > said. "It's disgusting. America is
being cheated."<BR>>>>> > > ><BR>>>>> >
> > "As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that
this<BR>>>>> > > > government<BR>>>>> >
> > knew<BR>>>>> > > a<BR>>>>> > >
> whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than
it<BR>>>>> > > > has<BR>>>>> > >
ever<BR>>>>> > > > admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit
into the ground. They had a<BR>>>>> > > > plan
to<BR>>>>> > > go<BR>>>>> > > > to war
and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to<BR>>>>>
> > > war."<BR>>>>> > > >
------------------------------------------<BR>>>>> > > >
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<BR>>>>> > >
><BR>>>>> > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:31 AM,
lfalen <<A
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A>><BR>>>>>
> > > wrote:<BR>>>>> > > ><BR>>>>>
> > > > I am glad that you say "if". Regardless of that is is
ridiculous<BR>>>>> > > > > to<BR>>>>> >
> assert<BR>>>>> > > > > that it may have been
planed by anyone in the Bush<BR>>>>> > > > >
administration. To<BR>>>>> > > say<BR>>>>> >
> > > some heads should have rolled may be appropriate , but
hind<BR>>>>> > > > > sight<BR>>>>> >
> > > is<BR>>>>> > > always<BR>>>>>
> > > > better than foresight.<BR>>>>> > > >
> Roger<BR>>>>> > > > > -----Original
message-----<BR>>>>> > > > > From: Ted Moffett <A
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:01:38 -0700<BR>>>>>
> > > > To: lfalen <A
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Power Hour "Libertarian"
Radio<BR>>>>> > > > > ShowPromotesClaim of 9/11
Cover-up[<BR>>>>> > > > ><BR>>>>> >
> > > > I am not saying President W. Bush deliberately allowed
9/11 to<BR>>>>> > > happen,<BR>>>>> > >
> > > except insofar as he was incompetent. And the historical
facts<BR>>>>> > > > > > in my<BR>>>>>
> > post<BR>>>>> > > > > > are accurate. Name
one fact in the post you responded to that<BR>>>>> > > >
> > is not<BR>>>>> > > > >
well<BR>>>>> > > > > >
verified.<BR>>>>> > > > > ><BR>>>>>
> > > > > *If, and I emphasize if*, there was any deliberate
intentional<BR>>>>> > > > >
malfeasance<BR>>>>> > > > > > among agents of the
US to exploit a pending terror attack<BR>>>>> > > > >
> against the<BR>>>>> > > US<BR>>>>> >
> > > to<BR>>>>> > > > > > promote the
agenda of the "Project for the New American<BR>>>>> > > >
> > Century"<BR>>>>> > > (Cheney<BR>>>>>
> > > > and<BR>>>>> > > > > > Rumsfeld
supported this project) which is rather explicit in<BR>>>>> >
> documents<BR>>>>> > > > > > noting that a "new
Pearl Harbor" would provide the<BR>>>>> > > > > >
justification for<BR>>>>> > > an<BR>>>>> >
> > > > expansion of US military hegemony, President W. Bush
would<BR>>>>> > > > > > likely<BR>>>>>
> > have<BR>>>>> > > > >
been<BR>>>>> > > > > > a figure head, not a planner
of such malfeasance, and likely<BR>>>>> > > > > >
kept out<BR>>>>> > > of<BR>>>>> > > >
> the<BR>>>>> > > > > >
loop.<BR>>>>> > > > > ><BR>>>>> >
> > > > Some think that Cheney was more president, in reality,
than<BR>>>>> > > > > > Bush<BR>>>>>
> > during<BR>>>>> > > > >
his<BR>>>>> > > > > >
presidency.<BR>>>>> > > > > >
------------------------------------------<BR>>>>> > > >
> > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<BR>>>>> > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at
11:26 AM, lfalen <<A
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A>><BR>>>>>
> > wrote:<BR>>>>> > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > > Your history is
distorted. Bush did not allow 9/11 to happen<BR>>>>> > >
anymore<BR>>>>> > > > > than<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen( I am not a fan
of<BR>>>>> > > > > > > either).
On<BR>>>>> > > Pearl<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > Harbor the Japanese code was broken and a message was
sent<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
out.<BR>>>>> > > Neither<BR>>>>> > > >
> FDR<BR>>>>> > > > > > > or the military
higher ups received it.<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
Roger<BR>>>>> > > > > > > -----Original
message-----<BR>>>>> > > > > > > From: Ted
Moffett <A
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:33:05
-0700<BR>>>>> > > > > > > To: Paul Rumelhart <A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Power Hour
"Libertarian" Radio<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
Show<BR>>>>> > > > > > > PromotesClaim of 9/11
Cover-up[<BR>>>>> > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > President Bush's
August briefing before 9/11 explicitly<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > stated<BR>>>>> > > "Bin<BR>>>>>
> > > > Laden<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> determined to strike in US."<BR>>>>> > > > > >
> ><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > I question
the theory that the 9/11 attacks and the<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > collapse of<BR>>>>> > >
the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > buildings involved
was orchestrated by agents of the US.<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > But the<BR>>>>> > > > >
theory<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > that 9/11 was
"allowed" to happen, that there was<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > substantial<BR>>>>> > > > >
evidence<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
that<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > terrorists were
going to strike the US, but the aggressive<BR>>>>> > >
actions<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
required<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > to stop the
attack were deliberately avoided, is possible,<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > given<BR>>>>> > >
that<BR>>>>> > > > > the<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > neo-con "Project for the New American Century"
explicitly<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
stated<BR>>>>> > > in<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > military<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
think tank analysis prior to 9/11 ("Rebuilding America's<BR>>>>>
> > Defenses:<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
Strategy,<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > Forces and
Resources for a New Century" September 2000:<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > ><BR>>>>> > > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > <A
href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf">http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf</A>
),<BR>>>>> > > > > > > that
a<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > "new Pearl Harbor"
would provide the justification for the<BR>>>>> > >
expansion<BR>>>>> > > > > of<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > US<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> military power into the Middle East and elsewhere.<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > ><BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > At best, the fact that more aggressive steps were
not<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
taken<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
to<BR>>>>> > > stop<BR>>>>> > > > >
the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > 9/11<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > attacks, reveals gross incompetence, if not
a deliberate<BR>>>>> > > conspiracy<BR>>>>> >
> > > to<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
exploit a major terror attack against the US as a "new<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > Pearl<BR>>>>> > >
Harbor"<BR>>>>> > > > > to<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > expand US military/economic hegemony. Cheney and
Rumsfeld<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
signed<BR>>>>> > > the<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > "Statement of Principles" for the "Project for the
New<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
American<BR>>>>> > > > > Century"<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > in<BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > 1997 (<BR>>>>> > > <A
href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm">http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm</A>).<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > It is<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > no surprise they assumed positions of great power in
the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
second<BR>>>>> > > Bush<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > administration, given the agenda to expand
US<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
military/economic<BR>>>>> > > > >
hegemony<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
was<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > planned well in
advance, if they could gain the White<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > House<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
back.<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > I won't continue a
history lesson here (the two websites<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > below<BR>>>>> > > offer<BR>>>>>
> > > > a<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
critical analysis of 9/11 orthodoxy). But there are very<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > serious<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > questions<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> that can be raised regarding why more aggressive
steps<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
were<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
not<BR>>>>> > > taken<BR>>>>> > > >
> to<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > stop the 9/11
plot, given the information we know the US<BR>>>>> > >
government<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > possessed
regarding the plans for a terror attack on the<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > US, who<BR>>>>> > > > >
might<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
carry<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > out such an
attack, and that use of commercial aircraft as<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > terror<BR>>>>> > > > >
weapons<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > was known prior
to 9/11 as a likely method. Bush<BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > administration<BR>>>>> > > > >
national<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > security
advisor Condoleeza Rice was either woefully<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > uninformed,<BR>>>>> > > > > which
I<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > doubt given her
intelligence, or engaging in "spin"<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > propaganda to<BR>>>>> > > > >
hide<BR>>>>> > > > > > > the<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > tracks of Bush administration failures
regarding the 9/11<BR>>>>> > > attacks,<BR>>>>>
> > > > when<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
she<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > made the statements
quoted from the second website below:<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > ><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > <A
href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405E.html">http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405E.html</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > ><BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > ---------------------<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > ><BR>>>>> > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > ><BR>>>>> >
><BR>>>>> > ><BR>>>>> > > <A
href="http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_post-9/11_world=denials&timeline=complete_911_timeline">http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_post-9/11_world=denials&timeline=complete_911_timeline</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > ><BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > >From website immediately above:<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > May 16, 2002: Nobody Predicted 9/11-Style
Attacks, Says<BR>>>>> > > Condoleezza<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > Rice<<BR>>>>> > > >
> > ><BR>>>>> > ><BR>>>>> >
><BR>>>>> > > <A
href="http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a051602rice#a051602rice">http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a051602rice#a051602rice</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > ><BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> [image: Edit event]<<BR>>>>> > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > ><BR>>>>> >
><BR>>>>> > ><BR>>>>> > > <A
href="http://www.historycommons.org/eventedit.jsp?oid=1626004942-36209&drafts=null&timeline=complete_911_timeline">http://www.historycommons.org/eventedit.jsp?oid=1626004942-36209&drafts=null&timeline=complete_911_timeline</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > ><BR>>>>> > > > >
> > ><BR>>>>> > > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > [image: National
Security Adviser Rice tries to explain<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > what Bush<BR>>>>> > > > >
knew<BR>>>>> > > > > > > and<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > when in her May 16, 2002 press
conference.]National<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
Security<BR>>>>> > > Adviser<BR>>>>> > >
> > Rice<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > tries to
explain what Bush knew and when in her May 16,<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > 2002<BR>>>>> > >
press<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > conference.
*[Source: CNN]*National Security Adviser<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > Condoleezza<BR>>>>> > >
Rice<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > states, “I don’t
think anybody could have predicted that<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > these<BR>>>>> > >
people<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
would<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > take an airplane
and slam it into the World Trade Center,<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > take<BR>>>>> > > > >
another<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
one<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > and slam it into
the Pentagon, that they would try to use<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > an<BR>>>>> > >
airplane<BR>>>>> > > > > as<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > a<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> missile,” adding that “even in retrospect” there was<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > “nothing” to<BR>>>>> > >
> > suggest<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > that.
[White House,<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
5/16/2002<<BR>>>>> > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > ><BR>>>>> >
><BR>>>>> > ><BR>>>>> > > <A
href="http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html">http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > ><BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > ] Contradicting Rice’s claims, former CIA Deputy
Director<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
John<BR>>>>> > > Gannon<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > acknowledges that such a scenario has long been
taken<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
seriously<BR>>>>> > > by US<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > intelligence: “If you ask anybody could terrorists
convert<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
a<BR>>>>> > > plane<BR>>>>> > > > >
into a<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > missile?
[N]obody would have ruled that out.” Rice also<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > states,<BR>>>>> > >
“The<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > overwhelming bulk
of the evidence was that this was an<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > attack<BR>>>>> > > that<BR>>>>>
> > > > was<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
likely to take place overseas.” [MSNBC, 5/17/2002] Slate<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > awards<BR>>>>> > >
Rice<BR>>>>> > > > > the<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > “Whopper of the Week” when the title of Bush’s August
6<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
briefing<BR>>>>> > > is<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > revealed: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”
[Slate,<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > 5/23/2002<<A
href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066154">http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066154</A>><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > ] Rice later will concede that “somebody
did imagine it”<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > but
will<BR>>>>> > > say<BR>>>>> > > > >
she<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > did not know about
such intelligence until well after this<BR>>>>> > > >
> conference.<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
[Associated<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > Press,
9/21/2002]<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
------------------------------------------<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > ><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> On 3/14/10, Paul Rumelhart <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > > Trust, once
lost, takes a lot of work to get back. When<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > > you<BR>>>>> > >
have<BR>>>>> > > > > the<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > U.S.<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> > government arming Osama and the CIA enabling
drug<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >
trafficking<BR>>>>> > > for<BR>>>>> > >
> > the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >
Contras, it's not a big stretch to wonder if they had<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > > any<BR>>>>> > > > >
involvement<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
in<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > > 9/11. There are
enough strange things surrounding 9/11<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > > that I<BR>>>>> > > > >
would<BR>>>>> > > > > > > not
be<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > > surprised to
find the government was involved.<BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > ><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > > The
reason I obey traffic laws has more to do with<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > > safety<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > > than<BR>>>>> > > > > trust
of<BR>>>>> > > > > > > the<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > > government. Generally, the system
works well enough that<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
> you<BR>>>>> > > can<BR>>>>> > > >
> at<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
least<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > > have some
faith in a contract, and some hope the police<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > > will<BR>>>>> > > > >
respond if<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
you<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > > call them. I
wouldn't want to be the guy that happened<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > > across<BR>>>>> > >
some<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > > confidential
documents or saw the wrong thing go down at<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > > the<BR>>>>> > >
wrong<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
time,<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >
though.<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >
Paul<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > > Wayne Price
wrote:<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Ted, et
al,<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >> One
has to ask, or at least I do, why would people put<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >> any<BR>>>>> > >
faith<BR>>>>> > > > > in<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > these<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> >> wild stories? While, I don't agree with 9/11 being
an<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
inside<BR>>>>> > > job,<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > there is<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>> a general distrust of ALL levels of government
that<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
just<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >> feed into
things like this. And not just on the<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > >> national<BR>>>>> > >
level,<BR>>>>> > > > > but<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > more<BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > >> importantly at the local levels as well. For
instance,<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
does<BR>>>>> > > anyone<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > living in<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> >> Northern Idaho really think the "boys in Boise"
even<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
care<BR>>>>> > > about<BR>>>>> > > >
> North<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
Idaho?<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >> If they
feel that way, why? Does anyone trust an<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >> employment<BR>>>>> > > >
> contract<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
or<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >> retirement
contract with the U of I? If not, why? Can<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >> you<BR>>>>> > >
trust<BR>>>>> > > > > that<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > the<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> >> speed limits on our county roads are legitimate?
If<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
not,<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
why?<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
Distrust of "government",once it starts, is hard to<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >> turn<BR>>>>> > >
around<BR>>>>> > > > > and I<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >> believe that in America, we have a long
long way to go.<BR>>>>> > > > >
Perceptions,<BR>>>>> > > > > > > good
or<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >> bad are
real, even though they may not be true. And it<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >> is in<BR>>>>> > >
the<BR>>>>> > > > > light<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > of<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> >> those perceptions that people live, not in light of
the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
truth<BR>>>>> > > or<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > falsity of<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>> an issue.<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > ><BR>>>>>
> > > ><BR>>>>> > ><BR>>>>> >
><BR>>>>> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> On Mar 13, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Ted
Moffett wrote:<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >> There
are a lot of "conservatives" who believe in a<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >> government<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > cover-up<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> >>> regarding the facts of 9/11.<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> There is a radio show that has a large
following that<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> has<BR>>>>> > > been<BR>>>>> >
> > > on<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> air
for years, that I have listened to numerous times<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>> on<BR>>>>> > >
> > shortwave,<BR>>>>> > > > > > > that
is<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> very
political but in some ways hard to stereotype. I<BR>>>>> > >
suppose<BR>>>>> > > > > you<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > could<BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > >>> call it hard core libertarian (they
passionately<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> promoted Ron<BR>>>>> > > > >
Paul's<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
presidential bid), which means that it is very<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> distrustful of<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > government in<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > >>> a consistent aggressive way that many
traditional<BR>>>>> > > "mainstream"<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > conservatives<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> are not. Anti-abortion views are expressed,
which fits<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
the<BR>>>>> > > > > current<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>> Republican agenda, but there are
two issues that have<BR>>>>> > > received
a<BR>>>>> > > > > lot<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > of air<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> >>> time where the show has argued for
government<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
cover-ups, Gulf<BR>>>>> > > War<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > Syndrome<BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > >>> among vets, and 9/11. This show aggressively
attacked<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
the<BR>>>>> > > Bush<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > >>> administration, and is doing the same to Obama's.
Main<BR>>>>> > > website<BR>>>>> > > >
> for<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
this<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> radio
show:<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> <A
href="http://www.thepowerhour.com/">http://www.thepowerhour.com/</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
---------------------------------------------<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> The following documentary described at
the website<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> below,<BR>>>>> > > > > promoted
by<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> "The
Power Hour," pulls no punches regarding what it<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> claims<BR>>>>> > >
was<BR>>>>> > > > > "a<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > massive<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> >>> cover-up" regarding 9/11:<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> <A
href="http://www.thepowermall.com/">http://www.thepowermall.com/</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>> *911 In Plane
Site<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> *New* "The Directors Cut" *with *"More Footage -
More<BR>>>>> > > Photographs<BR>>>>> > >
> > -<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
More<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
Evidence" *<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> *PRODUCER: Dave vonKleist*<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> DIRECTOR: William Lewis<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>><BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> Due to the overwhelming response of "911
In Plane<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
Site," we<BR>>>>> > > were<BR>>>>> > >
> > able<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
to<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> collect
mountains of new footage and photographs from<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> sources<BR>>>>> > >
all<BR>>>>> > > > > > > over
the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> world.
We can now say, without a shadow of doubt, that<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> we<BR>>>>> > >
have<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
undeniable<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
evidence of a massive cover-up. From the 16 ft. hole<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>> in<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> the<BR>>>>> > >
outer<BR>>>>> > > > > > > walls
of<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> the
Pentagon to the news reports of bombs, explosions<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>> and<BR>>>>> > >
> > potential<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> demolition of World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7, to
the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
strange<BR>>>>> > > > > > > attachment
on<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> the
bottom of Flight 175 and the mysterious flashes<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> caught on<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > videotape by<BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > >>> at least five separate sources, it is clear - 911
was<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
an<BR>>>>> > > inside<BR>>>>> > > >
> job.<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> From Dave vonKleist, co-host of The Power Hour
radio<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
program<BR>>>>> > > and<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> writer/producer of the album "Will Someone
Listen" &<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> William<BR>>>>> > > > >
Lewis,<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
producer<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
of "American Freedom News", "TruNews" and<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> producer/writer of<BR>>>>> >
> the<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
album<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
"Police State" comes a full length documentary<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> exposing<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> one<BR>>>>> > >
of<BR>>>>> > > > > the<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > largest<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> >>> conspiracies ever uncovered. With the pounding
force<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
of<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
a<BR>>>>> > > > > > > sledgehammer
you<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> will
find yourself horrified and astonished at the<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> shear<BR>>>>> > >
scope of<BR>>>>> > > > > the<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>> largest transgressions ever carried
out against the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> people of<BR>>>>> > > the<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > United<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > >>> States and indeed... of the entire
world.<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> ------------------------------------------<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>> Vision2020 Post: Ted
Moffett<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> On
Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Gier, Nicholas <<BR>>>>> >
> > > <A
href="mailto:NGIER@uidaho.edu">NGIER@uidaho.edu</A><BR>>>>> >
> > > > > <mailto:<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > >>> <A
href="mailto:NGIER@uidaho.edu">NGIER@uidaho.edu</A>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> Greetings:<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> The Tea Party candidate in the three-way primary
for<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
Texas<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
governor said to Glenn Beck that she was still<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> looking at<BR>>>>> > >
the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
evidence for a 9-11 cover-up. Beck's response was<BR>>>>> >
> something<BR>>>>> > > > >
like<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> "We'd
better look at another candidate!" Yes the<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> Tea<BR>>>>> > >
Party<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
people include not only "birthers" but "truthers."<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>><BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> Nick Gier<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>><BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > >>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> From: <A
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>> <<A
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A>>
on behalf of<BR>>>>> > > Garrett<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > Clevenger<BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > >>> Sent: Fri 3/12/2010 11:36 AM<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>> To: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020]
teabaggers<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> "I have yet to see you, Tom, Nick or Wayne
comment<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
on<BR>>>>> > > those<BR>>>>> > > > >
left<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
wingers<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
that think that 9/11 was an inside job of the Bush<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > Administration."<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>><BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > >>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> I don't think only some left-wingers believe
that.<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
Some<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
far-righters think there is a greater conspiracy<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> relating<BR>>>>> > >
to<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> that,
too.<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> I don't think it's a stretch, though, to assume
GWB<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
used<BR>>>>> > > 911<BR>>>>> > > > >
to<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> advance
an agenda they had been planning on for a<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> while<BR>>>>> > >
(the<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
PATRIOT act, invading Iraq, etc)<BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > >>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> That makes GWB look suspicious, especially<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
considering<BR>>>>> > > some of<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>> the discrepancies surrounding the
911 commission,<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> which<BR>>>>> > > Bush<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>> initially was
against.<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> It's also suspicious that that Bush and Cheney
both<BR>>>>> > > refused to<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> testify under oath to the 911
commission.<BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> Until someone looks at the arguments the 911<BR>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>> truthers
are<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
conveying (and there is lots of interesting<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> arguments in<BR>>>>> > >
their<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
favor) you probably shouldn't be condemning what<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>> they say.<BR>>>>> > >
> > > > > >>><BR>>>>> > > > >
> > > >>><BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> >>> I have no idea what the truth is, but I do know
that<BR>>>>> > > powerful<BR>>>>> > > >
> > > > >>> people are in control and do despicable
things to<BR>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
advance<BR>>>>> > > > > their<BR>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>> power, whether thats an
islamofacist or whoever...<BR>>>>> > > > > > >
> >>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>> Garrett Clevenger<BR>>>>> > > > > >
> > >>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>><BR>>>>> > > > > > > >
>><BR>>>>> > > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > > > ><BR>>>>>
> > > > ><BR>>>>> > > > >
><BR>>>>> > > > ><BR>>>>> > >
><BR>>>>> > > ><BR>>>>> >
><BR>>>>> ><BR>>>>>
><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
=======================================================<BR>>> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>>> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>
=======================================================<BR>>><BR>><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994.<BR>> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994.<BR>> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>
=======================================================<BR>></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>