Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LIHOP

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 02:57 PM
Original message
LIHOP


Which public officials have expressed their belief in LIHOP?

Who would be most likely to pursue this as a criminal matter once Kerry is in the WH?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. I believe in LIHOP
I just don't like their food...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's a serious question
I have a reason for asking. No offense, I'm just hoping for some real replies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Not even close to funny.
I guess you don't live in New York.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Have you sampled the other brand of coolaid? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. Huh!
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'd be curious to know ....
if anyone with any serious ranking has expressed a belief in LIHOP. I have not seen anyone credible in national politics who has expressed this view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Who was that representative from Georgia?
She said Bush knew, and immediately was targeted by the entire assembled might of the SCLM-- and lost in the 2002 primary to Denise Majette. What a time to space out on a name...

But anyway, what happened to her has, I'm sure, convinced everybody else in elective office that, even if they think LIHOP is possible, they're history if they ever breathe a word of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Cynthia McKinney
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Cyntha McKinney
She doesn't have the power to pursue it now. Is there anyone else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thanks to both of you
Anyway, point is, nobody else will dare to talk about it now, because of what happened to her.

What I hope is that President Kerry appoints a tenacious attorney general with a long memory. (Dean would do nicely.) This has been the War Criminal Administration, even more than Reagan's (many of the same people, of course-- recidivists), and we have to bring Infinite Justice to them.

Of course, Cheney will remind Junior to pardon everybody on his way out the door, just like his father did :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Dean is not an attorney
I hope it's Eliot Spitzer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
33. Possibly it was John Dean being suggested? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. It seems that a likely explanation
is that, rather than being "targeted," she lost credibility, and thus the support needed to stay in office. I'm not aware of her record in office, but I'd be willing to bet a dollar to a doughnut that she wasn't at the height of political power before her LIHOP statement, and then had the rug pulled out from under her. Thus it seems unlikely that her loss in a primary would be a factor in how any credible politician views 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gildor Inglorion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. McKinney is going back to Congress...
in all likelihood. Majette decided to run for the Senate. I've always been an admirer or Cynthia McKinney. She tells it like it is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #13
28. She'll be back this term?
I didn't realize she was running. Right now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Right now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. There's this guy
Stanley Hilton, a San Francisco attorney and former aide to Senator Bob Dole, filed a $7 billion lawsuit in U.S. District Court on June 3rd. The class-action suit names ten defendants, among whom are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Norman Mineta.

Hilton's suit charges Bush and his administration with allowing the September 11th attacks to take place so as to reap political benefits from the catastrophe. Hilton alleges that Osama bin Laden is being used as a scapegoat by an administration that ignored pressing warnings of the attack and refused to round up suspected terrorists beforehand. Hilton alleges the ultimate motivation behind these acts was achieved when the Taliban were replaced by American military forces with a regime friendly to America and its oil interests in the region.

Hilton's plaintiffs in this case are the families of 14 victims of 9/11, numbering 400 people nationwide. These are the same families that rallied in Washington recently to advocate for an independent investigation into the attacks. The current 9/11 hearings are being conducted by Congress behind closed doors, a situation these families find unacceptable.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.21A.pitt.watchtower.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
14. that's like the new third rail of politics
Nonetheless, I think Al Gore has come very close to saying as much, and I think that's one of the reasons he's getting zero coverage and being called names. Here's part of his speech earlier this week:


Now, most Americans have tended naturally to give the Bush-Cheney administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their failure to take any action in advance of 9/11 to prepare our nation against an attack…

But with the benefit of all of the new studies and investigations that have been made public over the last year, it is now no longer clear that the administration deserves this act of political grace from the American people.

For example, we now know from the 9/11 commission that the chief law enforcement officer appointed by President Bush to be in charge of counterterrorism, John Ashcroft, was repeatedly asked by the FBI official in charge of protecting us against terrorism, repeatedly asked to pay attention to the many warning signs that were being picked up by the FBI throughout the summer of 2001.

Former FBI acting director Thomas J. Pickard, the man in charge of presenting these warnings to General Ashcroft, testified under oath that Ashcroft angrily told him he did not want to hear this information anymore and shut down the discussion.

Now, that is an affirmative action by the administration that's very different from simple negligence. That is an extremely serious error in judgment that constitutes a reckless disregard for the safety of the American people.

And it was in this period of recklessly willful ignorance on the part of the attorney general that the CIA was also picking up unprecedented warnings that an attack on the United States by al Qaeda was imminent….

The only warnings of this nature that remotely resembled the one given to George Bush that I recall was about the so-called millennium threats predicted for the end of the year 1999, and somewhat less specific warnings about the dangers that might face the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996. And in both cases, these warnings in the president's daily briefing were followed immediately, on the same day, by the beginning of urgent daily meetings in the White House of all the agencies and offices involved in preparing our nation to prevent the threatened attack.

By contrast, when President Bush received his fateful and historic warning of 9/11, he did not convene the National Security Council, did not bring together the FBI and CIA and other agencies with responsibility to protect the nation, and apparently did not even ask follow-up questions later about the warning.

The bipartisan 9/11 commission summarized, in its unanimous report, what happened. And I quote: "We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11th between the president and his advisors about the possibility of a threat of al Qaeda attack in the United States," end quote.

The commissioners went on to report that in spite of all the warnings to different parts of the administration, the nation's -- again, I quote -- "domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction and did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law authorities were not marshaled to augment the FBI's efforts. The public was not warned," end quote.


Even as late as three months ago, when the growing chaos and violence in Iraq was obvious to anyone watching the television news, President Bush went out of his way to demean the significance of a formal national intelligence estimate warning that his policy in Iraq was falling apart, and events were spinning out of control. Bush described this rigorous and formal analysis as, in his words, "just guessing."

If that's all the respect the president has for reports given to him by the CIA, then perhaps it explains why he completely ignored the warning he received on August 6th, 2001, that bin Laden was determined to attack our country. From all appearances, he never gave a second thought on that report until he finished reading My Pet Goat on September 11th.



My friends, there are now 15 days left before our country makes this fateful choice for us and the whole world, and it is particularly crucial for one final reason: the last feature of Bush's ideology involves ducking accountability for his mistakes. He has neutralized accountability by the Congress by intimidating the Republican leadership and transforming the Republican majority into a true rubber stamp, unlike any that has ever existed in American history. He has appointed right-wing judges who have helped to insulate him from accountability in the courts. And if he wins again, he will likely get to appoint up to four Supreme Court justices. He has ducked accountability from the press with his obsessive secrecy and refusal to conduct the public's business openly. So there is now only one center of power left in our Constitution and in our country capable of at long last holding George W. Bush accountable, and it is you, the voters. There are 15 days left. Help me and help John Kerry and John Edwards take our country back. Thank you.

http://www.algore04.com/news/gnn/EpAlEukuZEoWoQliyA.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Im_Your_Huckleberry Donating Member (160 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. why, oh why didn't THIS Al Gore run in 2000? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Yeah, I hear you. I think he listened to some bad advice
I don't think it was until later when he gained perspective on the 2000 election that he started to understand that the playing field wasn't exactly level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. "an affirmative action ... that's very different from simple negligence"
You're right - Al Gore came very close to saying it. And I did not see that speech because I was at work at the time, like most of the nation, and I saw NO coverage of it in the evening.

Thanks for posting that - much appreciated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike Niendorff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. I'll second your reaction on this.

I saw the speech rebroadcast on C-Span last Monday, and this line stood out like a neon sign to me, too. When you get into the zone of "an affirmative action" that goes beyond "simple negligence" then, by definition, you're either talking about criminal negligence or criminal complicity.


MDN

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. It's certainly possible
to read any number of things into what Gore might have meant. But we can say for sure that he did not say either "criminal negligence or criminal complicity."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike Niendorff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. fair enough.

Perhaps I'm still in shock, and suffering from severe hunger to see these issues addressed at the national level. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. But that is how I took his remarks, at least in substance. Who knows, maybe he himself hasn't yet put the pieces together. But, however you choose to see it, I think we can all agree that these remarks represent a major positive step in the public discourse on this issue.


MDN

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. I agree fully.
I've said on other threads that while I do not believe in either LIHOP or MIHOP, I can appreciate that many intelligent and patriotic people do. I have friends who feel very strongly that the Bush administration, at the very least, LIHOP.

My beliefs are different, but perhaps not radically so. I think that the Bush administration is evil. I know that they are capable of taking actions that will cause the suffering and death of tens of thousands of innocent human beings. They will do this not only for political power, or to enhance their opulent lifestyles. They are capable of doing to change the order of the digits in their bank accounts.

Yet if one takes the time to read even two readily available books by Anonymous, the CIA analyst, one will find that there is indeed a struggle between US business/political interests, and the Islamic world. And I believe that the truth is that this administration did not do enough to protect this country not because they wanted 9-11 to happen, but because of a combination of over-confidence and the stupidity that goes hand-in-hand with it. The administration had other aggressive plans for the Middle East -- clearly including an invasion of Iraq -- and the USA got hit first. Al Gore's speeches do in fact say this. One need not read anything into them. Likewise, Michael Moore's movie tells much the same story. But it would be interesting to have someone ask them in an open forum, so that they could clarify their answer to remove any doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
15. I really hope that whoever Kerry appoints as Attorney General
will launch an real investigation into the Iraq war. If this can be done, then maybe by stages it can lead back to LIHOP and then the stolen election of 2000 because I truly believe that one led to the other in one continuous evil plot. What we need is to have it all put in one place and all the dots connected. Then may the indictments begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #15
30. Eliot Spitzer!
:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Are you in charge of thread topics?
Why do we have so many nannies today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecessaryOnslaught Donating Member (691 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
20. Dean did.
Edited on Fri Oct-22-04 05:07 PM by NecessaryOnslaught
I have a clip of Bush at a press conference- rough transcript from memory:

Reporter: Howard Dean recently mused as to whether your administration had advanced knowledge of 9/11.

Bush: stutter, stutter, stutter, its.. its.. stutter, politics, its just politics, stutter....

I thought shrub was gonna shit himself.

On Edit: LIHOP is a fantasy and a contradiction. The events leading up to 9/11, the events of the day, and the events that followed can only be explained by MIHOP.

and a link to the video

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/video/6/9_11laugh.mpg

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Dean said that others
were asking that. He did not say that he believed this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Yeah. If he does think LIHOP is true
he was indicating it obliquely:
Diane Rehm, WAMU (public) radio: Why do you think he's suppressing that report?

Dean: I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't—think it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear, the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092515
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. It's also important to note
that there can be a significant difference between being warned of something and being too arrogant and stupid to take proper actions, and being warned of something letting it happen on purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecessaryOnslaught Donating Member (691 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. You may be right
however the reporter in the video which i added to my previous post clearly says Dean, not "others".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Yes, I remember the incident.
Reporters often misrepresent the truth. By using the word "mused," the reporter was not telling an out-and-out lie. However, it was part of what I am convinced was an effort by the "mainstream" media to marginalize Dean and to discredit him, much as they used to do to Jerry Brown.

I believe that this is a serious topic, and think it is worthy of discussion. But I note that even outspoken men like Michael Moore and Rev. Al Sharpton haven't endorsed this theory. Both have made clear that the administration was negligent, which is a definite level of culpability. But it is distinct from LIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sherilocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. Big Stretch is Bill Sammon
The biggest (physically and mentally) * whore reporter from the Washington Times. He was probably given the question to ask in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #20
35. "letting it happen" versus "making it happen"
I don't understand why these are opposing schools of thought. No matter which account you believe, someone made it happen as others let it happen. Isn't the question whether Cheney, Bush, Putin, or Sharon individually MIHOP or LIHOP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC