Gravel considering Obama primary challenge, calls for new 9/11 investigation

[Newsjock]

Source: Daily Caller

Former Alaska Senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview that he is mulling a primary challenge to President Barack Obama in 2012.

In an e-mail exchange arranged by his daughter, TheDC asked Gravel if he was considering a run for president in 2012 and if he is specifically considering a primary challenge to President Obama. He replied, “Both are possible.”

... Gravel, who served in the Senate from 1969 to 1980, also stated that he believes that members of the U.S. government “may certainly have participated with the obviously known perpetrators” of the September 11th attacks. “Obviously an act that has triggered three wars, Afghan, Iraqi and the continuing War on Terror, should be extensively investigated”, Gravel continued, “which was not done and which the government avoids addressing.”

Gravel, who somewhat famously read the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record, also praised WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as a modern day Daniel Ellsberg. “The revelations of Wikileaks are not an endangerment to American troops in our far flung Empire, but they truly are an embarrassment to America’s political leadership today,” Gravel said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/09/gravel-considering-obama-primary-challenge-calls-for-new-911-investigation/

---

Sorry for the sourcing ... it's an exclusive interview, and this is the primary source.

[NoSheep]

1. K&R for truth

[howaboutme]

2. I found myself agreeing with Gravel in 2008

and find myself agreeing even more now.

The only thing consistent about our government is how as a nation we've been sold out to other nations such as China, Korea and by our own leaders. Also how our leaders have allowed us to be hacked, lied to and manipulated into wars, loss of our rights, and every other atrocity that benefits only the PTB. It 's going to take a strong personality, and not a "compromiser" to set things right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[lib2DaBone]

3. Glad to hear it. Gravel/Bernie Sanders 2012

[onenote]

41. would they run on the Libertarian ticket or the Socialist ticket?

Since neither one is a Democrat, they aren't going to be the Democratic nominees.

[montanacowboy]

4. Mike Gravel

is an honorable man and has strong convictions

[smiley]

5. Not going anywhere with a platform like that

unfortunately to many people are unwilling to believe that anyone in our govt would have anything to do with 9/11.

[TheEuclideanOne]

6. But it would be nice. Maybe some information will be Wikileaking

and offer some insight.

[Peace Patriot]

12. Um, if "too many" are unwilling to believe it, then what's the problem with a proper investigation?

We certainly need to know everything we can know about government/military disorganization, confusion, malfeasance, and so on, as threats to our security. And if no one within the government colluded on it, fine, a real investigation would help establish that, instead of all the rumors, speculation, private investigations and in fact widespread belief that the Bush Junta DID have something to do with it. End the rumors! Deeply investigate the most important event in recent history.

In any case, most people at one time believed that the world is flat and were "unwilling to believe" that it wasn't. So what? Only a few of them tried to stop scientific experiment to discover the real shape of the earth; some may have suspected it already (cuz it's pretty obvious when you watch a ship "sink" on the horizon), and most were probably curious, as most humans are, about novelties and discoveries that might be of use, and the more novelties and discoveries there are, the more curious do they become.

What "most people are willing to believe" has NEVER been a predictor of what they come to believe, once there is proof of it, or of its usefulness. What "most people are willing to believe" is not the same as what most people change their minds TO believe, given enough evidence and reason to change their minds.

Ask most Americans, did people in our own government collude on 9/11?, and probably most would say "no" or "don't know enough to say." Ask them, should there be a new and better investigation of 9/11?, and I think you would get most of them saying "yes" and possibly an overwhelming majority (cuz I think an awful lot of people have at least vague suspicions about it).

So your premise is wrong, that "too many people" being "unwilling to believe that anyone in our govt would have anything to do with 9/11" would mean that they wouldn't approve of a re-opened investigation.

And he DIDN'T say that this was his "platform."

[smiley]

22. ok

Whoa - I'm on your side. I want the investigation to happen. I try to educate as many people as possible to the discrepancies in the official story. But it seems to me from conversations I've had with friends, family, and acquaintances, the majority of them think I'm crazy for questioning the events of that day. So it just my opinion based off of my own observations which lead me to believe most people are unwilling to question the official conspiracy theory. Hopefully someday I'll see evidence to the contrary.

As far as it being his political platform. Maybe not his entire platform. But I would think it wouldn't help his campaign much. Because as I've already said there are still to many people who are unwilling to question the Official Conspiracy Theory and therefore, unwilling to support a new investigation.

:)

[defendandprotect]

48. Otoh, I think there are many of us who don't know anyone who doesn't

question 9/11 --

And ... am I wrong in presuming that the people you are talking about haven't

bothered to look at the information challenging the OCT?

And, I do see your point re Gravel's support for the issue perhaps shocking some

of those people. And it is that which will be played on.

Much like Kucinich and the UFO --

But we have to note the framing of the issue which usually happens ....

If Walter Cronkite would have said ... "I actually watched a UFO one day circling

a rocket taking off..." as an introduction to such a conversation, the interest

would shift.

ALL of our presidents have dealt with and discussed UFO's ... back to Truman --

as well as astronauts, commercial pilots, doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs.

The first question the native Americans asked Columbus had to do with sightings

of these ships from space -- Columbus denied knowing anything about them.

And it is denial and "Mockingbird" ridicule which are mainly used to respond to

these callenges. Granted a few websites exist on all of these issues to try to

de-bunk, but we are very fortunate in the many private investigators who have

devoted themselves to investigating most of these conspiracies and the de-bunkers

end up looking foolish, imo.


Also -- a very firm argument AGAINST what you are saying can be seen here at DU when articles

are permitted on these subjects are permitted to linger a while in GD. Often, then,

we see an immense response. And that includes many newcomers to the issue who then

proceed to see why it is 9/11 questioned. Keeping these issues locked up in the

dungeon imo does a disservice to most DU'ers who really need this information.

Then we must also ask ourselves who is served when these subjects are made taboo?


Another point on the dungeon, is that you can see people here who seem to act to try to

control even what can be said and heard here! And that's done with the standard MO --

attacking the messenger, red herrings -- and generally trying to kill the comments by

pretending that they have been "debunked" -- are simply boring -- or are just too

crazy to be heard!!


:)

[musette_sf]

54. which is why I don't bother with the Dungeon anymore

The "Popular Mechanics said it, I believe it, that settles it" crowd.

[defendandprotect]

63. Keep in mind, they're here to keep you from discussing the issue ....

that's there purpose --

Not familiar with any other websites at the moment, personally, where

there is more active forum discussion -- other than Reality Shack --

Simon Shack's website/September Clues.

There are other websites where UFO's and 9/11 can be discussed in the

regular topic areas -- Old Elm Tree has a lot of info -- on 9/11 --

If you find a good one, let us know!!


:)

[Creative]

70. Fortunately, too many people are unwilling to believe the noise being emitted

by the clatter of tin foil.

[TheEuclideanOne]

7. Question: Can he do this?

Is there some time limit that we have to be concerned over? It would be nice if Obama's self destruction actually had a positive outcome, like somebody initiating an investigation into 9/11.

[defendandprotect]

50. With you on that!

[JTFrog]

8. He won't get any more support than he did in 2008. n/t

[ExTheUnknown]

9. I wonder if he is a truther

Hopefully he has had some physics education and does not try to imply fire won't melt steel.

[smiley]

23. Collapse has only happened 3 times

All on 9/11.

:)

[cpwm17]

26. Yes, we want no truther

We don't need a candidate that believes in any impossible conspiracy theories concerning 9-11 - guaranteed loss.

We need a candidate that is up front as to why we were attacked and to investigates the intelligence failures that allowed it to happen. Also we need a candidate that will call for investigations and prosecutions concerning the fabricated excuses for our current wars.

Perhaps Kucinich is ideal. He's all substance and little stile. The country may like that now after the failures of Obama.

[TheWatcher]

31. The most ridiculous Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 is the Official Story.

Sorry you are still lost in the wilderness on that one.

If you're still that willing to believe Official Propaganda after 10 years, then you don't want, nor can you handle the truth.

We don't know the complete Truth about what really happened.

But the Government's version is full of shit.

Kucinich was my desired choice last time.

I would completely be on board this time as well.

[cpwm17]

33. Angry Arabs took down the buildings

We can speculate all we want as to why the intelligence services didn't try to stop it. The NSA was tracking the terrorists, and agents warned of the potential dangers. But nobody in authority would act. This is what needs investigating.

But as the saying goes: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Perhaps I wouldn't say never. But this is a good rule to go by.

[TheWatcher]

37. "Angry Arabs took down the Buildings."

That one statement right there shows your complete and utter willful, ignorance.

If you are ever able to get past that, you might actually be able to examine everything objectively and see how utterly ridiculous the Official Story is.

But I suppose the Official Fable is very eat and simple for people like you, just like you like it.

There isn't any point having discussions with people like you, because you are already fully invested in what you've been told to believe. it's not worth the time or energy to waste.

At this point in the game, you either get it, or you don't.

You, obviously don't, and you likely don't want to. Just apply a simple rule to everything, and everything is so simple and easy to understand.

Keep Sleeping.

*click*

[cpwm17]

45. The official fable is

they attacked us for our freedoms, or because they were Muslims - that's total BS. I knew almost immediately after the second plane hit the towers what was up. History didn't start on 9-11, and this was payback (blowback) for US atrocities in the Middle East. The fabricated stories about explosives in the towers (or what ever you believe?) planted by the US Government are a terrible distraction. You miss the real story.

It's obvious that many of the neocons were quite happy with 9-11 - a dream come true. Also the White House let Osama escape. They were lying scumbags. That's just who they were.

[defendandprotect]

56. Sadly, I think it has to be obvious to us all that we need an immense power shift ....

to overturn the history of right wing political violence in this country --

which has been out in the open for the past half century -- but certainly exists

even before that --

At the time of the JFK coup -- even then -- Congress was quickly shut down in any

investigation of it -- and WC put in place by LBJ. By the time the Congress got

around to thinking about it again, those protecting the cover up were securely in

place and were able to undermine much of it -- though they did at the very end find

for a conspiracy based on the Dallas p/o tape.

Only saw small parts of it at the time, but thought Stokes did a fair job with the

power he had. That was pretty much the end of any investigation, however.

And, seems obvious to me that since then they have permitted only those who are

committed to the cover up to hold the WH -- and to occupy Congress.

a few slip ups re the WH/not 100% -- and less of course in the Congress -- so far.



PS: Lost my direction ... but was trying to make the point that EVEN with what we

actually know and is provable re JFK assassination, here's how it was delivered to me

much to my shock at the time ....

"No one has the power to bring the truth forward."

And I think that person was mainly correct.

[defendandprotect]

57. Agree -- any one truly interested in any subject gets familiar with the challenges ....

to their position --

"Truthers" as well see that as their responsibility -- and carry thru

addressing their critics.

Same has to happen here for anyone who truly believes that anyone from outside

the government pulled off 9/11!

In fact, I've often pointed out that if Bush had told Americans that the Russians

had done 9/11, they'd still be :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

55. dupe

to overturn the history of right wing political violence in this country --

which has been out in the open for the past half century -- but certainly exists

even before that --

At the time of the JFK coup -- even then -- Congress was quickly shut down in any

investigation of it -- and WC put in place by LBJ. By the time the Congress got

around to thinking about it again, those protecting the cover up were securely in

place and were able to undermine much of it -- though they did at the very end find

for a conspiracy based on the Dallas p/o tape.

Only saw small parts of it at the time, but thought Stokes did a fair job with the

power he had. That was pretty much the end of any investigation, however.

And, seems obvious to me that since then they have permitted only those who are

committed to the cover up to hold the WH -- and to occupy Congress.

a few slip ups re the WH/not 100% -- and less of course in the Congress -- so far.



PS: Lost my direction ... but was trying to make the point that EVEN with what we

actually know and is provable re JFK assassination, here's how it was delivered to me

much to my shock at the time ....

"No one has the power to bring the truth forward."

And I think that person was mainly correct.


Sadly, I think it has to be obvious to us all that we need an immense power shift ....

[defendandprotect]

53. It doesn't .... unless you mean at temperatures that never happen in fires ....

EXCEPT when theremite and other explosives are added?

[cpwm17]

61. Think again

Here is an example of a steel structure collapsing from a fire in Oakland California:

"Huge leaping flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze early this morning, causing it to collapse onto the roadway below and virtually ensuring major traffic problems for weeks to come.

The elevated roadway that fell carried eastbound traffic from the Bay Bridge onto Interstates 580 and 980 and state Highway 24. It draped like a blanket over a roadway below, a connector from southbound I-80 to I-880 that also was severely damaged."

Fires will weaken steel. This can cause steel structures to collapse. The steel doesn't need to reach its full melting point to weaken it.

Obviously the aircraft took the towers down. I'm sorry if it contradicts your pet theories.



http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-04-29/bay-area/17239903_1_tanker-truck-roadway-firefighters

[defendandprotect]

62. Can't believe anyone is still carting that one around ...

Wow -- That's really desperate --


STOPTHELIE.COM

Building fires will NOT weaken steal -- unless they are "salted" with

Thermite or or explosives --



http://stopthelie.com/freeway_collapse.html




------------------



Explanatory Photos at site --

1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.

2. Those 200 foot flames were acting on a single support truss that was fastened to the two columns pictured here. That truss (and the connectors that fastened it to the columns) represents a small fraction of the steel that would have been found on a single floor of the towers or WTC 7. So again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.


3. You'll notice that despite the intense fires ability to weaken the truss and connectors that there is NO mention of molten metal in the debris. Also, unlike the debris of the towers and WTC 7, it's not likely we're going to hear anything about thermate (specifically used to destroy steel columns) in the bridge debris.

4. You'll notice that the concrete roadway that "pancaked down" on the roadway below did not cause the lower freeway to collapse. Nor has the concrete disintegrated into a fine powder.

5. You'll notice the columns were not torn down by the collapse, nor did they evaporate into thin air, rather they are still standing (having only lost the the truss and connectors that held the roadway to them.)

[cpwm17]

67. So you knew you weren't telling the truth earlier

when you said "It doesn't .... unless you mean at temperatures that never happen in fires ....". I showed you an example where that wasn't true. Fires will weaken steel and potentially cause collapse.

The author of the response was blowing smoke by comparing the collapse of a very tall building and a freeway overpass. Of course there will be significant differences in the collapse. That's common sense.

I will continue "carting that one around" when someone makes such claims.

[defendandprotect]

68. The truth now and ever more is steel frame buildings do not fall from fires ....

UNLESS thermite or explosives are added --

If you want to respond to the other info I gave you on the nonsense

of your "steel" bridge collapese ... try doing that --

Don't add disingenuousness on top of your desperation --

If you have any info on a steel frame building coming down due to simply

fire, let's have it.

[summerintx]

10. That just sets Dems up for even more electoral losses.

Primary challenges ALWAYS mean losses - defeat for the President AND for his primary challengers. That guarantees the GOP candidate will win.

Read Tim Groeling's well-researched book *When Politicians Attack.* There are lots of media incentives in the system to encourage members of the President's party to criticize him - and the public finds criticism of the President by members of his own party as uniquely valid and believable.

[defendandprotect]

58. Come on... had RFK not been assassinated by the rw, Nixon would not have been president...

and, if I have events chronologically correct, had Wallace not been

attacked and been able to actually run, it would have negatively impacted

Nixon's votes in serious ways which they feared. Then, too, they also took

Muskie out of this race, if you recall.

And, same with Kennedy vs Carter -- shadow of Chappaquiddick -- another event

which Nixon and his Plumbers seem to be involved in.




http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp8.html

[Liberalynn]

11. It will be interesting to see what develops here.

I wonder if anymore challengers will be stepping forward?

[defendandprotect]

13. Good to see someone beginning the challenge to Obama .... about time!!

And he's right about 9/11 MIHOP -- but that should certainly bring Bush/Cheney gang

down on his head!!

[molly77]

19. I stopped watching the dem debates in '08

when Gravel and Kucinich were banned. After hillary and obama were saying that everything was on the table re. Iran..Gravel said,"these people scare me." I just loved him.

[defendandprotect]

43. Same here --

they've always been rigged imo -- at least as far as keeping populist discussions

at bay --

Of course, W's actually rigging the debates with his "wire" was something quite new --

and sorry I didn't watch because I was wondering if I would have noticed it?

It is those like Gravel and Kucinich and Nader and other third party candidates who bring

us the REAL issues --

Unfortunately, tuning out didn't give me an opportnity to catch up with Gravel and sorry

I missed that, "these people scare me" exchange! I'll have to try to catch up with him and

find out more about him.


What I found even more frightening in reflecting on it recently, was the way they barred

Nader from even the TV showing of the debate -- and in a way that seemed to be trying to

brand him as a "terrorist" -- !!! But Nader handled it amazingly well -- but it was a

really threatening situation in the sense of a threat to democracy and demcratic actions.

Worrisome....!!!


Thanks for the info -- :)

[progressoid]

14. If someone is going to challenge, lets get someone with at least a half of a chance of winning.

[defendandprotect]

44. Let's notice that we actually "won" this time around ....

but in fact we've lost --

and we've lost a great deal with two years yet to go!

[Scurrilous]

15. Seriesly hugh news.

He should be a shoe in. :thumbsup:

[pinboy3niner]

24. LOL!

He's hoping to turn his ripples into a tsunami, or at least a tidal wave. :rofl:

[MilesColtrane]

16. Here we go.

[sabrina 1]

17. That's a guy with guts. Next time he might find he has a lot more

support. He was great in the debates. He forced them to talk about substance, even though they didn't want to. The debates were exciting when he and Kucinich were involved, but those who make the decisions about who gets to be president in this country, were worried they were making too much sense and not sticking to the agenda. After they were gone, the debates were boring. Same old talking points, and everyone being ultra careful not to say anything the overlords might not like.

I can see him getting a lot of votes if he runs this time, but they will never let him win.

[jillan]

18. If he does, he has no chance of winning - but - he might make Obama answer some questions.

Questions that need answering.

Could be interesting. The potted plant vs the Prez.

[Frank Booth]

20. It seems like we could do a bit better than this.

Mike Gravel seems like a pretty decent guy, but he has about as much chance getting elected president as Julian Assange.

[davidinalameda]

21. he switched to the Libertarians in 2008

In March 2008, he announced he was switching to the Libertarian Party to compete for its presidential nomination and the inclusion of the National Initiative into the Libertarian Platform. At the May 2008 Libertarian National Convention he failed on both counts and announced his political electoral career had ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel

[Ghost Dog]

25. Should this not be relegated to the dungeon, then?

Calling for a proper investigation. Whatever next?

:sarc:

[TheWatcher]

32. Actually I'm surprised most posts that dare question ANYTHING that falls outside of accepted,

established Propaganda concerning, well, ANYTHING aren't regulated to the dungeon these days.

Free Speech, Independent and Critical Thought and Analysis, and questioning are simply too dangerous to be allowed.

The Rabble must be kept in check, after all.

[cottonseed]

35. Gravel is a thought crime?

[TheWatcher]

38. Just about anything that falls outside of "accepted" Paradigms is.

You must not think, only follow.

You must not question, only accept blindly what you are told.

You must not resist, only submit.

You must not speak out, only shut up.

You must not seek change, only shop.

[cottonseed]

39. I've read all those books.

They encapsulate some of our society, but not all.

[defendandprotect]

47. +1000% -- exactly .... beware the making of taboo subjects ....

[quakerboy]

27. Might be a good thing for Obama

a weak challenger with just enough potential to siphon the fuel out of any attempt to build momentum around a serious candidate from the left.

[ChumbawambaFan]

29. Too many skeletons, the GOP would steamroll him. (whoops, wrong place for this!)

Which is sad. I like Mike Gravel...
.... but too many American are afraid of anything controversial.

Obama won as a blank slate.
Bush the great uniter.
Clinton was staunchly middle of the road.
Etc etc etc.

[lamp_shade]

28. Maybe y'all could ask Skinner to start a Gravel Group.

[Scurrilous]

34. ROFL

:thumbsup:

[indimuse]

30. knr for 911! Investigate ALREADY!! (butchoowont)

;(

[FormerDittoHead]

36. Gravel did the right thing w/the pentagon papers. Otherwise he's a KOOK.

Guy is a borderline libertarian. He even likes the fucking national sales tax: "Fair Tax".

We want a primary challenge to come from the left, not KOOKS.

[krabigirl]

42. He is a left leaning libertarian.

[krabigirl]

40. Supported him in 2008 :) he was ignored. Go Mike!

I hope Obama has many good challengers.

[slay]

46. Gravel has done some great things

"In 1971, he waged a successful one-man filibuster for five months that forced the Nixon administration to cut a deal, effectively ending the draft in the United States. He is most prominently known for his release of the Pentagon Papers, the secret official study that revealed the lies and manipulations of successive U.S. administrations that misled the country into the Vietnam War. After the New York Times published portions of the leaked study, the Nixon administration moved to block any further publication of information and to punish any newspaper publisher who revealed the contents.

From the floor of the senate, Gravel (a junior senator at the time) insisted that his constituents had a right to know the truth behind the war and proceeded to read 4,100 pages of the 7,000 page document into the senate record. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Senator Gravel did not have the right and responsibility to share official documents with his constituents."

from: http://www.mikegravel.us/bio

[thanks_imjustlurking]

52. I'd love to see this as an OP. nt

[defendandprotect]

59. Wow ... that all changed the world for the better until ....

BFEE moved us over the hump of what they called "The VN Syndrome" in America!!

:rofl: :rofl:

[thanks_imjustlurking]

49. I doubt he's got a chance, but by god I appreciate him. nt

[Catherina]

51. Gravel can count on my vote. Obama is never getting it again. n/t

[defendandprotect]

60. Me, too ....

Well, at least as far as Obama not getting it --

I'd like to see Sen. Bernie Sanders run -- he could run on a Dem ticket -

we have to be very sure of the VP --

[freshwest]

64. I always loved Mike Gravel

From the Pentagon Papers days, and since. It was the debate when he was talking about the people dying in Iraq and Hillary guffawing that did it, no Hillary for me.

At least Obama was civil and not arrogant in the debates. I would never vote for Hillary. However, she was sufficiently angry or else her supporters were, to send many 'democrats' to vote for McCain. It was a bitter time, when Democrats should have acted less like DINOs.

I voted for Gravel in the primaries and Obama in the general election. I still don't know if Gravel has a chance but he is a great American.

Both parties worked against their anti-war candidates 2008 and nearly booted out of office. I felt at that time they didn't care what the people thought. I was disappointed in the way Howard Dean was treated, as well. A lot of that was from the media, which IMHO always favors wars. They don't allow any other opinion.

But I'd hate to see the Democratic Party fractured in 2012. Then the chances of Palin or someone like her in the White House would really increase. I don't want Obama to be a one-term POTUS either, because I believe he is doing the best he can under the current oligarchy.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

65. I like Gravel on a personality level but if he can't beat Gravel in a challenge then ...

It's probably done anyway. He could easy beat him on paper.I would prefer The President not ot have a challenge but given all we've seen he should be ready if one occurs.

[panzerfaust]

66. ? Who

would be the response I am afraid

[Vidar]

69. I'd rather have Gore or Clarke, but Gravel will have my vote.