Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war

[frustrated_lefty]

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian

"Michael Meacher, who served as a minister for six years until three months ago, today goes further than any other mainstream British politician in blaming the Iraq war on a US desire for domination of the Gulf and the world.
Mr Meacher, a leftwinger who is close to the green lobby, also claims in an article in today's Guardian that the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that the US knew in advance about the September 11 attack on New York but, for strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings.

He says the US goal is "world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies" and that this Pax Americana "provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis".

Mr Meacher adds that the US has made "no serious attempt" to catch the al-Qaida leader, Osama bin Laden."

more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1036588,00.html

[Walt Starr]

1. He'll now be McKinneyed

Even though he has probably hit this nail square on the head.

[Jim Sagle]

8. McKinneyed, or Kellyed? That's worse.

[soleft]

2. Hey, Meacher, if you're a DUer, good going!

[amberdisc]

3. Blimey..

I never would've believed the old country still had in it.
Some pretence of balanced democracy in process! Pretence of course.

On edit: typo

[JoFerret]

40. Hutton is doing

a good job it seems of preserving a sense of integrity.

[jamesinca]

4. Somebody in the govt. finally said LIHOP

I have no idea who this person is but I love him. I think I am going to have another child just so I can name them Meacher LIHOP. Now if we can get the LIHOP idea to hop the Atlantic that would be great.

[Barrett808]

5. The only thing missing: Operation Northwoods

He hits all the other salient points. Bravo. Think I'll send him a congratulatory email: [e-mail]

[JohnyCanuck]

35. This is the email I just sent him:

If you haven't done so, may I suggest that you take a few minutes to dash off a quick email of support. It's very likely he is going to be under tremendous pressure to back off his statements and I think it's important that he be able to show there are lots of people who want answers to the same questions as he does.

Dear Mr. Meacher,

Thank you so very much for your recent Guardian article which shines a light on the links between the Bush administratio neo-con advisors making up the PNAC group, their self-professed plans for world domination, and the unexplained, outrageous (and ignored by the media) failures by the US authorities to make any meaningful attempts to forestall the attack of 9/11 in spite of the numerous warnings and alerts that were flowing into the intelligence agencies and the Bush administration at the time..

To be sure these connections have been troubling many of us who use the internet on a daily basis to obtain information from a wide variety of sources. To those who only have the mainstream news media as a source of information, your questioning and probing of the glaring weaknesses in the official explanation surrounding the tragic events of 911 will no doubt come as a shock. However it is only if people such as yourself have the courage and fortitude to speak out and lay all the cards on the table that we have any hope of resolving the complex issues that have the potential to lead us all to destruction.

You are to be comended for your courage and forthrightness. I know you will come under some extreme pressure over the coming days and weeks to renounce the views you expressed in your article. Please stick to your guns and continue to demand that the important issues you raised are fully addressed by the appropriate authorities. At some point the elephant in the living room can no longer be ignored. We must make sure we keep pointing it out at every chance we get.

Regards and best wishes

[Thoth]

62. great letter

is his email address listed in the Guardian article?

[belab13]

6. Another light in the wilderness. Good on you Michael Meacher.

I can't wait till the air force folks who were told to stand down or the faa administrators who interceded on behalf of the administration can't live with themselves anymore, and the horrible truth comes howling out. and it will sooner or later.

[Minstrel Boy]

7. Here's the link to Meacher's article

"This War on Terrorism Is Bogus." (The other Guardian link is the story of the reaction to it):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1036685,00.html

You really must read this. It's amazing stuff, particularly coming from a man who was a longtime Blair Cabinet Minister.

...

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

[RainDog]

11. American media fails in their duty to Americans

...why doesn't any American newspaper of record report this? Why is this information kept from the American people by willful distortions by tv "news" programs?
----

"First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001)."

[crissy71]

69. Soon, they will, but

It'll be buried somewhere and not given any weight, or else they'll invent a "scandal" about him and dismiss him as a loon - be sure they won't try to answer any of the questions he raises

[scarletwoman]

13. This is a MARVELOUS article!

Succinct, precise, lays it all out there!

I've written a letter to the Guardian of appreciation and support for Mr. Meacher's courage -- the hate mail will probably be coming in floods, I wanted to make sure that a counter voice was offered.

Instructions for writing to the Guardian can be found here (scroll down): http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/0,6957,180522,00.html

sw

[Minstrel Boy]

17. good idea. I sent Meacher an email

expressing my appreciation for his courage. He's bound to get a lot of not-so-encouraging "feedback."

[e-mail]

[Pert_UK]

54. He won't get much hate mail from the UK.......

And this is a UK paper.

Most people in the UK have a huge distrust of Bush and Blair now, and are unlikely (IMHO) to start writing hate mail to someone who highlights their corruption.

They may, of course, pick holes in his theories and suggest he's a conspiracy theorist, but to be honest I suspect he'll get quite a lot of support....although not from the Labour party!

[Flying_Pig]

9. I vant you to find dis Meacher, unt bring him...

to me. Fly him to my villa in France, in a small plane, and tell PNAC OP's to set up a little, ...um, ..turbulence. :evilgrin:
<http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,287510,00.jpg>

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

21. You gotta know that Bushco is really frustrated at not being able

to squash free speech in the press outside of the US.

[seventhson]

10. He quotes John Loftus!!! Loftus was the first to expose Bush/Nazi Nexus

I have interviewed John and am proud to call him a friend.

He is President of the Florida Holocaust Museum in St. Petersburgh and does a radio program too.

I don't always agree with John. But I am glad to see that his research is paying off.


The Secret War Against the Jews (Loftus/Aarons, St. Martin's Press) is a must read. He documents the ties of the Bushes to Hitler.

Google Loftus and learn a lot!!!

[Minstrel Boy]

12. Here's a link to a BBC profile on Meacher

from June 13:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2988588.stm

"Michael Meacher is one of Labour's longest serving MPs, having first been elected in 1970.

"He is also Labour's most experienced minister, having served in various roles throughout the Wilson and Callaghan administrations in the 1970s, in addition to being environment minister since 1997."

It will be hard to dismiss this man as a loon, but I'm sure they'll try.

[legin]

14. He's not small fry by any means

Has been on the TV here a lot in the past as he has a good solid TV mannar, as far the british public are concerned in the very recent past easily in the top 10 most recognisable Labour MP's.

[Briar]

20. They already have...

...this is the best the US can find to say at the moment:

"The US government last night expressed abhorrence at Mr Meacher's views. An embassy spokesman in London said: "Mr Meacher's fantastic allegations - especially his assertion that the US government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia - would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible."

As usual, the fascist thugs have no defence against the argument, and have to attack the man.

But Meacher is certainly serious and credible - up till the summer he was a Cabinet minister. He is only out of the Cabinet because he would not bow to Blair's obsessive Americanising of our country and opposed the introduction of GM crops (among other things, I am sure).

[RainDog]

27. synchronicity- NYTimes, 1944-45

Last night I was looking at some old library bound newspapers from the WW2 era.

Two articles caught my eye. I'll have to go back to find out the exact dates of each of them.

In one, a democratic Congressman raised the question of whether or not Roosevelt knew of the coming Pearl Harbor attack and had moved the American fleet.

Another was from a speech or interview with Henry Wallace (Roosevelt's v.p. at the time) in which he said that he was worried that the Nazi's would fall (American troops were already fighting), but that they would not be eliminated and would recoup, in a decade or two, and would re-emerge as a threat to democracy.

As we all know, America imported Nazis to work in the U.S., and as has been well-documented by Russ Bellant, both Reagan and Bush Sr. were more than willing to court fascist networks in the U.S.

I believe the jury is still out on Pearl Harbor, but more and more people seem to think there were indications that Roosevelt LIHOP.

In the case of Hitler, America had a real reason to invade, imo.

In the case of Saddam, I do not think that is or was the case, and the invasion has, in fact, made the world less safe and has strengthened Al Qaeda.

In addition, Sy Hersh makes a very good argument, and many others are starting to do this as well, that someone at the highest levels of the executive branch ordered our military to stand down and let the ISI take bin Laden away when he was cornered in Tora Bora.

Levy, a French philosopher/media commentator whatever, has a new book out now which also talks about the ISI, about allowing bin Laden to escape, and about America's pact with the "devil" in Pakistan.

Our govt knows Pakistan has harbored and enabled bin Laden.

I bet there are millions of Americans who are unaware of all of these issues.

With the new article in the Oct. Vanity Fair, from another guy talking about the Saudi's flying out with the help of the administration, I do not see how the so-called "news" stations can fail to ask some real questions.

I mean, how many people have to scream at them before they do their job?

There are so many unanswered questions about Bush/Cheney/energy policy/terrorism and 9-11 that American deserves access to the truth.

Someone should subpoena Cheney's papers again. If he ignores it, again, throw his ass in jail. Show these crooks that they are not above the law.

When will the investigation in Plame and the likely violation of the identities protection act be made public? --is the FBI still investigating the claim?

Will the IG force these crooks out into the open with the investigation of Rove?

Will the judge who smacked down Ashcroft get beyond a bitch slap?

Democracy needs to know.

[0rganism]

49. Damn straight! Right out of the Logical Fallacies playbook...

"Mr Meacher's fantastic allegations would be monstrous"
Appeal to Consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam)
Definition: The author points to the disagreeable consequences of
holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is
false.

"and monstrously offensive"
Prejudicial Language
Definition: Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral
goodness to believing the proposition.

"if they came from someone serious or credible."
Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of
the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's
character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it
may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable
outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by
the company he keeps...
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the
argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

( cited from http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm )

[scottxyz]

58. Well, yes, they ARE monstrous

His allegations are quite monstrous. It was indeed monstrous to let airplanes fly into civilian targets in order to get another Pearl Harbor.

The US Embassy in London's response is really quite pathetic. If indeed someone "let it happen on purpose," by definition any statement alleging that would be monstrous. Monstrous, and quite possibly true. Sure sounds a lot more believable than the load of shit we've been fed by the Administration ("We had no IDEA they'd try using planes as weapons." Well, if you read your own damn intelligence reports you'd have had that idea. Idiots and criminals.)

[DS1]

15. good for him

the questions need to be asked, too bad (as usual) they are being asked off-shore.

If the U.S. Presidency was a world-wide election, Bush would get about .0002 percent of the vote.

[xchrom]

16. way to go!

bravo -- mr meacher, today at least, you are my hero!

[priller]

18. Very well put

And there are so many other indications that 9/11 attacks were expected that he didn't mention, for example:

-- how the lengthy and extensive "Patriot Act" bill suddenly emerged just a week after 9/11. It was obviously prepared in advance
-- Ashcroft avoiding public aircraft for weeks before 9/11
-- The massive increase in short selling on the airline stocks

and I'm sure others can come up with a great many more.

And another thing. The FBI agent who kept blocking the Minnesota agents who were wanting to search Moussoui's (sp?) computer was later given an award and $20K bonus by the FBI for doing good work. WTF is up with that?

[ignatius]

47. Don't forget the Bush orders to the FBI to lay off the

investigation of the Saudis and the Bin Laden family. Also the chief of the Pakistan ISI had $100,000 wired to Atta in the summer of 01. The put options profit that has never been claimed should be easily tracked, it is very peculiar that there is no mention of this. The pentagon wanted to open a betting parlor(futures trading market) on terrorist attacks when they can't even follow up on something this obvious.

The anthrax attacks immediately after which enabled these bastards to get the Patriot act passed by a terrorized Cpngress and whose trail led to the CIA and then the investigation stopped is also a critical element to LIHOP, IMHO. Also the fact that the WH had taken CIPRO shots, coincidentally picking the correct vaccination for the multitude of potential biological diseases which could strike a person was extremely odd as well.

A wonderful timeline which has been around for a while, but in case you haven't seen it or have forgotten, is worth a look occasionally.

http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. The Patriot Act

For me the first smoking gun was Bush's non-chalant reaction to being told about the planes hitting the World Trade Center. It just seemed so odd at a time when I and everyone I know was in utter shock.

Then came the immediate disclosure of the names of the alleged hijackers, plus the discovery of a car abandoned at the Boston airport with a set of incriminating evidence that Robert Ludlum would have rejected for one of his "frame the main character" novels because it was too hokey.

But what really did it for me was the Patriot Act, a huge, complicated bill ready to go to committee in record time. During my "unemployed Ph.D." days, I worked as a temp in a law office for a brief time, and so I know how complicated and nit-picky legal writing is.

I checked my suspicions with a retired law professor who lived in my building, a man who had been closely associated with many of Oregon's recent political figures, and he agreed that a bill of that size and complexity could not have been drafted in such a short time unless it had at least been sketched out before 9/11. Just thinking up all the provisions would have taken a long time, not to mention checking to make sure that they didn't duplicate any existing legislation and checking to make sure that all the parts (which would have to be drafted by a team of attorneys) were internally consistent.

The lack of Air Force interception is a real problem. The planes were en route from Boston to Los Angeles, and the normal routes don't involve charging down the Hudson River at high speed and low altitude. Air traffic is monitored constantly and handed off from one radar to another as it proceeds. Someone should have noticed the plane veering off course. The FAA should have notified the Air Force. Someone either slipped up really, really badly TWICE, or there was a deliberate gap in the normal procedures that require the Air Force to check out any suspected hijackings.

My theory has always been LIHOP. I think the Busheviks knew that there would be an attack, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about knowing that the towers would collapse. I think they were imagining something that would take out a few floors and kill a few hundred people (nobody "important," of course), but otherwise allow the towers to remain standing, so that business could continue as usual.

I also think the fourth plane was headed for the Capitol. Busheviks would have been willing to sacrifice a few Republican buddies (and as many Democrats as possible) for the opportunity to declare martial law. And do you know what? Judging from the lack of public concern about the laws that were enacted, I bet that most Americans would have submitted to martial law without a whimper.

[screembloodymurder]

19. I just finished sending this article

to all my friends and relatives. I asked that they read it before Sunday and then listen to the President's speech.

Let them decide for themselves.

[screembloodymurder]

22. Kick !

This needs to be distributed.

[SpiralHawk]

23. Paging American Media: It's now or never folks

My dear friends in the American Media:
You have been on vacation for nearly two decades. Feeling refreshed from your long doze? OK. Then wake up right now and begin to report the truth.

Let the chips fall where they may. Time is shorter than you think.

Blow this one and you will all someday be forced to recognize that your collective lives have been meaningless and mainly colored with the heinous spiritual quality of cowardice.

There is another way. It's spoken of as standing tall, telling the truth, having a big heart. It comes from breathing into and then living out of the center of your personal integrity. So who among you has a lion's heart? A hawk's eye? A champion's soul? A lot of you, I hope.

Good luck. We need you. Now.

Let the truth be revealed. May justice prevail.

[AP]

24. Funny thing is, there's nothing new in Meacher's letter if you

regualarly read DU.

[Stephanie]

25. He mentions Dabhol!

That's an item that often gets left out. It would be very interesting to see the the Cheney energy task force notes on Enron/Dabhol.

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

He left out the Cheney Energy Task Force Iraqi maps to divvy up the oil fields, the OSP that conjured evidence against Iraq at the behest of Rummy, the censoring of the 9/11 Congressional investigation, and the revenge taken on whistleblower Joseph Wilson and his wife:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92372,00.html
Cheney Energy Task Force Documents Detail Iraqi Oil Industry
Friday, July 18, 2003

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force appeared to have some interest in early 2001 in Iraq's oil industry, including which foreign companies were pursuing business there, according to documents released Friday by a private watchdog group.

Judicial Watch (search), a conservative legal group, obtained a batch of task force-related Commerce Department papers that included a detailed map of Iraq's oil fields, terminals and pipelines as well as a list entitled "Foreign Suitors of Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."

The papers also included a detailed map of oil fields and pipelines in Saudi Arabia and in the United Arab Emirates and a list of oil and gas development projects in those two countries.

The papers were dated early March 2001, about two months before the Cheney energy task force completed and announced its report on the administration's energy needs and future energy agenda.<more>



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
The spies who pushed for war
Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force
Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

As the CIA director, George Tenet, arrived at the Senate yesterday to give secret testimony on the Niger uranium affair, it was becoming increasingly clear in Washington that the scandal was only a small, well-documented symptom of a complete breakdown in US intelligence that helped steer America into war.

It represents the Bush administration's second catastrophic intelligence failure. But the CIA and FBI's inability to prevent the September 11 attacks was largely due to internal institutional weaknesses.

This time the implications are far more damaging for the White House, which stands accused of politicising and contaminating its own source of intelligence.

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency. <more>



http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1004773,00.html
Don't blame September 11 on spy failures, says report
Gary Younge in New York
Thursday July 24, 2003
The Guardian

Nothing could have been done to stop the terrorist attacks on September 11 even though an FBI informant had contact with two of the suicide hijackers a year before they were carried out, according to a congressional report into intelligence lapses preceding the destruction of the twin towers, to be published today.

But despite objections from some senators a crucial 28 pages of the 900-page report, which criticises Saudi Arabia for its lack of interest in clamping down on Islamist extremists, has been removed from the final document.

Saudi Arabia was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers yet remains a close and important ally of America in the region. The omission of criticism of Saudi Arabia was condemned by the Democratic senator and presidential hopeful, Bob Graham, a former chairman of the joint house and Senate intelligence committee.

"I start from the premise that in a democracy, the people should know as much as the government knows unless there is a very compelling case that the information threatens American security interests," he said. <more>



http://www.nynewsday.com/news/ny-uscia0722,0,2289800.story?coll=nyc-topnews-short-navigation
Columnist Names CIA Iraq Operative
By Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce
Washington Bureau
July 21, 2003, 9:48 PM EDT

Washington -- The identity of an undercover CIA officer whose husband started the Iraq uranium intelligence controversy has been publicly revealed by a conservative Washington columnist citing "two senior administration officials."

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's employment, said the release to the press of her relationship to him and even her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate others like him from talking about Bush administration intelligence failures.

"It's a shot across the bow to these people, that if you talk we'll take your family and drag them through the mud as well," he said in an interview.<more>

[ldf]

26. kick

and i just sent my email of support to mr. meacher.

[Mari333]

29. so did I

:kick:

[xJlM]

28. I emailed the guy a 'thank you'

I also sent the article out to my email circle, with the stipulation that it needed to be read before the puppet speaks on sunday.

[Fridays Child]

60. Same here. Everyone, please take a minute to send him a note of support.

[e-mail]

[ljm2002]

30. Thanks for posting this!

My favorite parts:

"Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested."

and

"It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001)."

Of course we all knew there was some blowback here. What people don't want to admit, however, is how deep our (well, okay, the BFEE and others) involvement goes in training these monsters and then in, yes, ALLOWING this to happen.

So glad he wrote this!

The people who react so furiously give themselves away anyway. "What, you think we would stand by and allow 3,000 American citizens to be killed?" As though the numbers that we know after the fact have any bearing on what these slime were thinking beforehand. No, what I think is that you were quite willing to allow an attack to go forward, figuring that a couple hundred Americans might die but that the resulting outrage would provide the needed jumpstart for your agenda of stealing the remaining oil wealth in the world -- but not from the Saudis, of course, who have been such good business partners. And, when after the fact it turned out to be way bigger than you had supposed, with 3,000 Americans dead, it allowed you to pursue your agenda with greater vigor and and unquestioning populace *and* press.

But now they (in our name, sadly) have overreached, and have planted the seeds of their own demise.

IMNSHO.

[Sterling]

31. So where are all the anti skeptic trolls?

These threads are always more fun with their childish antics.

[Sterling]

33. Oh I see their pathetic attempts to debunk happened on a locked dupe threa

sorry. Tom Nickle where are you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=100030

[TomNickell]

37. Right here.

And you spelled my name wrong.

Actually, I agree with much of what Mr. Meacher says. Or at least agree that the charges need to be heard.

Unfortunately, he destroys his credibility (and probably his political future) by mixing in nonsense. (Can anyone spell Cynthia McKinney?)

eg "Was the American military told to stand down?"

How do you tell the Air Force to ignore a bunch of terrorists hijacking planes?

Issue orders:????

"
10 SEPTEMBER, 2001

ALL PERSONNEL:

WHEN THE ARABS HIJACK A BUNCH OF AIRLINERS AND START FLYING THEM INTO SKYSCRAPERS, DON'T DO ANYTHING. KEEP THE FIGHER PLANES ON THE GROUND.

THIS ORDER IS TOTALLY TOP SECRET. DON'T TELL ANYONE OR LEAK IT TO THE PRESS OR POST IT ON THE INTERNET. DON'T EVEN TELL YOUR WIFE OR GIRLFRIEND BECAUSE THEY MIGHT TELL SOMEONE ELSE.

AND IF ANY MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY IS FLYING ON 9/11 DON'T KEEP THEM OFF THE PLANES BECAUSE THAT MIGHT CAUSE A PANIC.

SINCERELY,
GEORGE W. BUSH
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
"

??????

I'm sure that's how it happened.

[scottxyz]

42. How to you explain the other 67 times fighter jets were scrambled

To TomNickell (hope I spelled your name right)

The most damning fact in Meacher's column, quoted from the Associated Press, and which you conveniently overlook, is where he says that figher jets were scrambled 67 times in response to suspicious aircraft in the US - but they WEREN'T scrambled on 9/11.

You say that Meacher is talking nonsense here. Since when is quoting the Associated Press considered nonsense? Are you arguing that, contrary to the AP report quoted by Meacher, we DIDN'T scramble 67 fighter jets in the months up to 9/11? Sources, please.

Meacher also points out that the reason fighters get scrambled to track suspicious aircraft in US airspace is because it is a legal requirement of the FAA. Are you saying that Meacher is spouting nonsense when he points out this simple fact too?

The only nonsense is the obvious foolishness you imagine Bush writing a memo "ALL PERSONNEL: WHEN THE ARABS HIJACK A BUNCH OF AIRLINERS AND START FLYING THEM INTO SKYSCRAPERS, DON'T DO ANYTHING."

Yes, that does sound like nonsense. And the person spouting it is YOU, Mr. Nickell - not Mr. Meacher.

You might consider looking up the meaning of the "straw man" rhetorical tactic before you post any more stupid attempts at arguing away Associate Press reports and FAA regulations.

Most of the damning quotes in Meacher's "nonsense" column are not written by Meacher himself - intead they are written by PNAC, whose members include Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. It was PNAC, not Meacher, who argued BEFORE 9/11 to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was PNAC, not Meacher, who complained that public support for such interventions would be lacking "without another Pearl Harbor".

Yes, there is lots of nonsense in Meacher's column. And most of it is in the quotes he lifts from PNAC's publicly-available documents and from news we've all accepted as fact from the AP and Newsweek.

[Sterling]

43. He doesn't and he will not

That is his MO. Create a straw man or harp on a mute point and pretend he contributed something meaningful to the discussion.

It's a real hoot, DU would be less fun without him to laugh at.

[rooboy]

46. Just for the record...

when Ewing was on this board, he replied to one of my posts saying that John Howard, Australian PM, WAS warned about specific flights.

He claimed that Howard was briefed in a neutral location (New Zealand) by Robert Mueller some months before 9/11. Shortly after that briefing, he cancelled a flight he had booked on AA77 (the flight that hit the Pentagon). As it stands, Howard was in Washington on the morning of 9/11.

I don't know if it's verifiable, but Ewing seemed to get hold of some fairly interesting stuff...

[TomNickell]

48. It's simply untrue that 'no jets were scrambled'.

There's a whole separate Conspiracist theory that the plane over PA was actualy SHOT DOWN by (presumably) scrambled flying jets.

Again, HOW do you STOP the military from doing standard procedures in a crisis? STOPPING the military from doing it's normal thing would be BIG DEAL and would be a very big risk for your hypothetical Vast Conspiracy. There HAS to be a paper trail, flight logs, radar tapes, witnesses.

Why would they even bother? Scrambled jets could do nothing without orders to shoot down the civilian airliners. Why not scramble the jets and delay the order?

Presumably * was just taunting Conspiracists with tantalizing clues you couldn't sell to less enlightened folk.

[Aries]

50. Do you know more than Gov. Kean and Richard Ben-Veniste

of the 9/11 Investigation Commission?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/attack/ap/may03/ap-sept-11-commiss052303.asp

"...Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste dug into the length of time it took the FAA to notify NORAD about American Airlines Flight 77 between the time it deviated from its flight path to the time it crashed into the Pentagon.

NORAD's McKinley said the FAA alert came at 9:24 a.m., 22 minutes after the second plane hit the World Trade Center. But Jane Garvey, former head of the Federal Aviation Administration, said in supplemental answers she submitted to the commission after her testimony on Thursday that the FAA made informal telephone contact with NORAD before 9:24.

At issue is whether a faster response by military jets could have averted the strike on the Pentagon. ``It's so important for our job to get that timeline right and to get those questions answered,'' Kean said...."

It appears from this testimony that either McKinley or Garvey is lying. As I recall there has been no satisfactory explanation of what communications took place, and whether or not jets were scrambled in a timely manner. There is certainly no evidence showing that they WERE that I am aware of. Do you have any?

[baby_bear]

51. And this from the 9/11 commission's interim report

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/report_2003-07-08.pdf
<snip>
The problems that have arisen so far with the Department of Defense are
becoming particularly serious. We have not received responses to requests
relating to NORAD and other DOD components, including the JCS and the
Department’s historical office. Delays are lengthening and agency points of
contact have so far been unable to resolve them. In the last few days, we have
been assured that the Department’s leaders will address these concerns. We look
forward to seeing the results.
</snip>

It is clear that there is something they don't want us to know about this issue. Does the word "stonewall" come to mind?

s_m

[Junkdrawer]

52. Thank you. I went looking for the "Official Explanation" this morning..

and found nothing in the Senate report. Amazing. Two years after the event and no official explanation - and the 9/11 families have been asking this question all along.

[baby_bear]

56. Agreed, JunkDrawer

I can't even imagine the frustrations of the 9/11-affected families. But this crap is unconscionable, period, and the Bush administration is accountable, period.

Why doesn't this get more attention?

*sigh*

s_m

[crissy71]

70. Right, someone at NORAD didn't pick up the phone

Didn't have to be an order - just a well placed lackey to do nothing and top down support (Cheney, Wolfie, Perlie, Media Heads) to make sure he (or they) is not called on it

[scottxyz]

57. Listen to yourself, TomNickell. Just Listen. To. Yourself.

(1) You say that "It's not true no jets were scrambled." And then you go on to justify it by saying "There's a whole separate Conspiracist theory that the plane over PA was actually SHOT DOWN by (presumably) scrambled flying jets.

Wrong answer, for two reasons:

(a) You only cite a vague, unproven conspiracist theory.

(b) Please tell us what jets were scrambled to shoot down the planes that hit the WTC.

(2) I'm saying the chicken crossed the road. You keep saying we don't know WHY the chicken crossed the road - as if by doing that you're somehow denying that the chicken did indeed cross the road.

You ask "HOW do you STOP the military from doing standard procedures in a crisis?" That wasn't the issue here. The issue here is: NO PLANES WERE SCRAMBLED THAT DAY TO SHOOT DOWN THE PLANES THAT HIT THE WTC. Yes, it might be nice to also know WHY no planes were scrambled - but that's another question.

The facts, as reported by the AP remain:

(1) Jets were scrambled 67 times before 9/11.

(2) Jets weren't scrambled on 9/11 to take down the WTC planes.

If your only response to this is "WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WEREN'T SCRAMBLED! WE DON'T HAVE COPIES OF THE ORDERS NOT TO SCRAMBLE THEM." that doesn't change the fact that THEY WEREN'T SCRAMBLED.

Allow me to quote from Meacher's article one more time in case you still don't understand:

"The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not?"

There is a document circulating on the internet now in PDF format laying out the laws about scrambling fighter jets in these circumstances. These laws were not followed. Please don't argue "BUT WE DON'T KNOW *WHY* THEY WEREN'T FOLLOWED OR *WHO* GAVE THE COMMAND NOT TO FOLLOW THEM," as if by doing so you were somehow rebutting the simple claim that THE LAWS WERE NOT FOLLOWED THAT DAY.

I'm saying the laws were broken. You keep saying "We don't know WHY they were broken." But are you agreeing with me at least that the laws were broken that day?

[stickdog]

64. What evidence do you have that ANY jets were scrambled until

after the Pentagon was hit?

Note that NORAD's famous scrambling timeline -- which makes no sense -- was only issued three days after 9/11 in response to media and government questioning.

[stickdog]

63. You have the military run a top secret drill on the same day.

And take advantage of the confusion.

[JawJaw]

32. Meacher Radio Interview

BBC Radio interview with Meacher Here (08:40 Sept 6)

including
PNAC:"Blueprint for world domination"
9-11:"extraordinarilly convenient pretext"

Isn't it laughable how the embassy guy tries to brush off Michael Meacher as somehow not credible??!

He's been a member of the UK parliament since year dot, in Blair's cabinet since the start, and is a privy councillor i.e. a member of a cross-political group that advises the Queen, and is one of the oldest parliamentary organisations in the world..

How much more credible do you have to be????

[LivingInTheBubble]

34. Headline story.

This was the headline story here on the hourly radio news on a (non BBC) station so I think this might get more attention than the other (e.g clare short) high profile people who have come out against the iraq attack etc.

I live in hope at least.

[Stephanie]

36. What's the response in the UK?

Is this new news there? Are people skeptical, or do they find it credible? Is it big news?

[Nottingham]

38. The Truth is right there!

Now its up to the people to Listen! I heard Bush talk about the Americans dedication to the USA and I thought and you used this patriotism to your advantage for your Global power play :crazy:

[Junkdrawer]

39. Kick

:kick:

[TacticalPeek]

41. KKKick Karl next! n/t

[scarletwoman]

44. "America Pearl Harbored"

Thought this article from last December might be of interest -- more details on the PNAC angle:

America Pearl Harbored

"Fanatical Warhawks Drafted Blueprint for Bloody U.S. World Domination Years Ago"

The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about. (more...)

sw

[PurityOfEssence]

45. Meacher quotes the "carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs" line

I always felt that would be a threshold moment.

Will this resonate? By definition it will gain some traction here and there. The important point above all else is to plant the seeds of doubt about this administration; with each allegation, more and more becomes acceptable to the minds of the many.

[wabeewoman]

53. Then someone famous and with creditability

will put it all together into a best seller and the bush regime will be exposed for what it is. What goes around comes around. And what great satisfaction that will be.

[scottxyz]

59. I think he put the wrong date on the "carpet" statement

confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

I think the date he gives is a bit late - maybe that's the publication date of the particular source 'Inter Press Service' - but I thought it was something that had been SAID to the Taliban much earlier, in the summer of 2001, after negotiations with Unocal broke down.

[TolstoyAndy]

66. BBC: US 'planned attack' on Taliban

This goes with the carpet of bombs.

I thought I had a copy of this one saved, but I don't seem to.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

This is just so chilling, and I remember when it came out. I was saying "Reichstag Fire" when the towers were still standing (just had a bad feeling), and I was eager to see stuff like this come out so quickly (expose festering evil to light).

I Googled up the link, which seems not to be working:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
Pakistani diplomat: US Planned Attack on Taliban in July 2001

But Google saves all, so to the cached page:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:11PK1j-G6B8J:news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm+%22Niaz+Naik%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[flatlandr]

67. Even the lovliest crusade's one thing from its ...

wombwarm center, possibly another far more grotesquely horrorshow matter from
without. This from talk.guardian.co.uk:

"The French have a phrase for what this Administration is going through right now:
'fuite en avant.' That's when someone, unable to confront the reality of a major screw-up,
chooses to ignore the situation and keeps raising the ante."

[jenk]

55. the international malaise speech

.

[IndianaGreen]

61. British official charges US “stood down” on 9/11 (September 8, WSWS)

Meacher: terrorism a pretext for conquest
British official charges US “stood down” on 9/11
By Bill Vann
8 September 2003

For its part, major US media outlets blacked out any reference to Meacher’s explosive charges.

The claim that Meacher is not “serious or credible” has no foundation. He is not a back-bench maverick or a member of what the right-wing British press likes to refer to as the “loony left.” On the contrary, he was the Labour Party’s most experienced cabinet minister, having served in Parliament for 33 years, holding various cabinet posts going back to the Wilson and Callaghan administrations in the 1970s. He served in Blair’s cabinet as environment minister for six years until he was removed in June amid the mounting crisis of the Labour government over the Iraq war. He played a prominent role in the negotiation of the Kyoto accords on the environment and was long considered a contender for the position of Labour Party leader.

That someone with these political connections charges in print that elements within the US administration knew that a terrorist attack was coming on September 11 and allowed it to happen to further their war plans represents an extremely dangerous development for the Bush White House. He speaks not just for himself. The thesis he advances is indicative of what is assumed and is being said behind the scenes among much wider circles within the sole major government to have backed Washington in its invasion of Iraq.

It is doubtless that the article was motivated by the deepening crisis of the Blair government itself over the exposure of the lies it used to promote the Iraq war. With continuing revelations from within the government’s own intelligence agencies about the fabrication of evidence against Iraq, recent polls have shown a majority of Briton’s in favor of Blair’s resignation.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/meac-s08.shtml

[tlcandie]

68. E-mailed Meacher and he replied back!

:hi: