Christ. I yell at people about conspiracy theories, and then this.

[WilliamPitt]

Blair rejects calls for probe into bombings
By James Blitz, Political Editor, and Jimmy Burns
Published: July 10 2005 20:55 | Last updated: July 10 2005 20:55

Tony Blair will on Monday reject Conservative demands for a government inquiry into last week's London bomb attacks, insisting such a move would distract from the task of catching the perpetrators.

As police and security services on Sunday continued searching for the bombers - thought to be Islamist terrorists - Downing Street said the prime minister believed an inquiry now into the outrage which killed at least 49 people would be a "ludicrous diversion."

Instead, in a statement to the Commons on Monday following last week's Group of Eight summit, Mr Blair is expected to focus on the direction the government must take to ensure future terrorism is defeated.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8186face-f17a-11d9-9c3e-00000e2511c8.html

Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu gotta be fucking kidding me, right?

Right?

A ludicrous diversion?

An inquiry is going to be a ludicrous diversion.

K.

French TV pegs the bombs as maybe the stuff that got boosted out of the Iraqi bunkers last year. The UK Independent reports that the bombers were some 'caucasion wing' of al Qaeda or some such nonsense.

I want to be a farmer. I want to be a farmer in the year 217, scratching a living off rocks in Scotland and fighting wolves and shit. Hell, at 33 I'd be an elder by now. That's fine.

Jesus.

[TheGoodCitizen]

1. Free your mind and the rest will follow...

:nopity:

Wonder why he would not want to find out who did this? They already know, hmmmm??

[Bucky]

95. Don't be so shallow

Really. Don't.

[truth2power]

119. Can you clarify that, Bucky?

I dunno...maybe I need to jump start my brain or something, but I thought Citizen and Will were on the same page....look at the most obvious explanation, more or less.

I, for one, wouldn't find it surprising that it was a Bushco diversion. For those who find that shocking, well, we're living in an insane world now, run(sic) by the worst kind of pond scum. Yeah, they'd do anything.

[TWiley]

142. Absolutely.

G8 summit was going south, Rove-Gate was about to hit the press, the DSM was poised to get a second breath, the bushtapos poll numbers were in the toilet.

PRESTO ! Bin Laden pulled another ace out of his hat for the shrub.

[earth mom]

150. Bin Laden on the payroll...?

Again, I don't trust these guys...everythings just oh so convenient, way too coincidental and too good (for them) to be true....

:tinfoilhat:

[TWiley]

156. Bin Laden was working with the CIA during the war

with Russia in Afganistan. Good ole poppy seed was head of the CIA. On the payroll? Well, maybe he is only a "former" CIA agent.

While he may have never reached "agent" status, he certianly was working closely with them for a long period of time.

[hiley]

170. Bucky could elaborate please ?

I want to fully understand what you meant by that.
If you don't mind.

[shraby]

2. Everything is so damn mind boggling

anymore, a person can't even relate what's going on without sounding like they've gone around the bend and are ready for the padded cell with the cute white coat that fastens the sleeves in the back.

[roguevalley]

4. We have passed through an invisible mental barrier into cloud

cuckoo land. It will take all our strength to hold onto lucidity and find our way back to the light. England, make him investigate. You still have a grip on reality.

[TheGoodCitizen]

9. Call me crazy but me thinks not....

After several years of "Mega Ditto's" from Rush Limpballs, Fox "News" and listening to the Bush Administration, the effects of this MASSIVE war time propaganda effort have taken it's tole on the masses in mysterious ways... they have almost succeeded in totally shutting us up and preventing us from thinking about the obvious without feeling strange!

Darkness Draws Near!

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[Burried News]

155. In science it is said that the world may be stranger than our ability

to conceive the possibilities.

But when it comes to politics, we should confine ourselves to the multiple choice questions in polls? I don't think so.

Much of what has happened in history was brought about by brilliant strategists. They don't leave many tracks but their handywork has a certain feel.

Facts are found best by creative minds. If we fail it should never be because we lacked sufficient imagination - or courage.

[Griffy]

157. WTC7 Will.. thats the key to 911.. you cant explain it can you...

I dare ANYONE to explain how WTC 7 collapsed hours later.. and it collapsed neatly into its own footprit... Go watch the video for yourself, watch carfully at the top, as the heavy Equipment on the roof collapses 1st, then the walls... then look at how controled demo is done. These are facts people.. facts they dont want you to notice! I'm a mechanical engineer and I have worked in construction... and I have looked at this carfully, and I have only 1 theory that fits all the facts that I know, it was controlled demo.. So I ask you Mr. Pitt, and anyone else, to give me another theory, otherwise we must seriously consider the fact is was demo! AND if it was, when were the charges planted? If it was before that morning.. how did they know? The point is, if you ignore WTC7 in your consideration of what happened that day, you will not find the truth.. in fact, the propaganda machine worked very hard to tell us what happened... ever wonder how they had all the photos of all the hijackers the next day?.. I wonder, I dont have answers but I'm asking the right questions.. are you?!

[TheGoodCitizen]

173. Did anyone die in WTC7 collapse?

...just curious, I really don't know. Maybe nobody knows for sure!

[bluestateguy]

3. Now I DO wish that the Tories had won

Sure their position on the war was the same as Blair's, but it's not like they pushed him into it, and Labor did not deserve to win with everything they have done to destroy the good name of Britain for the last 4 years.

[Vladimir]

6. Please don't

wish that on us... much as I despise New Labour and everything it stands for, the Tories are even bigger bastards. There was no realistic "good choice" at the last election, and that is the sad part of it all.

[mr blur]

16. Absolutely right.

[lfairban]

74. Welcome to America!

S S D S

Same Story, Different Side (of the puddle)

[Vladimir]

5. An inquiry would just result in another whitewash

but you are right, in theory, that an independant inquiry is called for. Its just that after Hutton, who can have confidnce in the results of any such inquiry anyway?

[rawtribe]

7. Coincidence Theory?

:tinfoilhat:

[The Magistrate]

8. One Small Point, Mr. Pitt

It would seem to me that an energetic attempt to catch the perpetrators, such as the Metropolitan Police are doubtless engaged in, ought to be classed as an investigarion of the bombing. It is certainly likely to bring to light such details as the procurement of explosives, and even flaws in security routines, if these contributed. There does not seem too much point just now to a parallel Parliamentary or Commission enquiry, run in tandem with the criminal investigation.

The Independent article merely reports that police say they are entertaining a theory that Bosnian Moslems might have been the operatives, or that local criminals might have been hired. The police say this is suggested by their surveillance of radical Moslem groups having given them no warning of the impending attack. Of course, police statements concerning what they are looking into, and what they do not know, are not things it is wise to take at face value. Often, they are calculated to lull the people being hunted into feeling they are safe, and that those bumbling coppers have not got a clue....

[WilliamPitt]

10. Fair enough

I suppose this makes sense; Blair covering his ass against Tories on the prod.

But Jesus, man. It hurts my head sometimes.

[Karmakaze]

25. Don't give in so easily...

A public enquiry is a very different matter from a police enquiry. The police do not hold OPEN investigations - if they find anything damaging to Blair, you can gaurantee you'll never hear about it.

A PUBLIC enquiry is not just justice being done, it is justice being SEEN to be done, which is every bit as important.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. It's really simple, actually.

This is nothing more than the Tories attempting to whip up a furor that they can use as a platform for more of their racist, anti-immigrant propoganda. We all know the Tories' "solution" to terrorism is race-based hatred, and I can't imaginge why anyone, especially people on DU, would support that kind of paranoid right-wing propoganda.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Karmakaze]

37. So an investigation of Sept 11 was justice...

but an investigation fo the london bombings is racism??

Sounds like bullshit to me.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. If it's the tories, yes.

Look, these guys don't give a fuck about the bombings. All they give a fuck about is their pet anti-immigration issue. They've already told us, during the recent elections, that their solution to every problem is to get rid of the immigrants. Unless that position has changed in the past three months, I really don't want to hear a fucking word they have to say on the subject. They have ZERO credibility on this issue.

[Karmakaze]

46. What has that got to do with a public enquiry???

The tories would not control such an investigation, because it would be up to the government to appoint an independant head of the enquiry, just like the Hutton enquiry.

The fact is - using the "its the Tories asking for it" excuse is pure bullshit.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. And what, exactly would they enquire about?

Given that the police don't even know:

1) Who did this
2) How they did it
3) The basic chronology of the events

It would seem that any enquiry would have to be quite limited, wouldn't you say? What, specifically, do you want to know from this supposedly Ivory Tower public enquiry?

[Karmakaze]

51. Oh I don't know...

everything? Isn't that the public's right?

Or are you suggesting that Blair and his cronies should be the only ones to know what really happened, and why?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

53. Are you suggesting...

...that the ongoing police investigation is being politically hamstrung by Blair? That's nonsense.

[Karmakaze]

56. No Im suggesting that the ongoing police investigation is SECRET!!!!

YOU will never know EVERYTHING they find during that investigation UNLESS a public enquiry is held!

The ONLY information the Police will release with regards to their investigation, is information that will help them to cathc the people who did it - they dont care whether something they did, or the intelligence agencies did, or Blair himself did made it possible, they will ONLY try to catch who did it.

Its a very simple concept.

And if the Tories were in power right now, Im sure you would get it, because your biases would not be getting in the way.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

59. If the tories were in power right now...

...the UK would have closed its borders and I wouldn't have been able to move here.

YOU will never know EVERYTHING they find during that investigation UNLESS a public enquiry is held!

I do not think that word means what you think it means. And of course the investigation is "secret." I'd prefer that the police not telegraph their progress to suspects still at large, thank you very much. Perhaps there will be a time, say, after they are done pulling dead bodies out of King's Cross, when a public inquiry might be held. Now is not that time.

[Karmakaze]

63. NOW is the only time - before the cover ups can be made...

A public enquiry is the exact opposite of a police enquiry - the police want to catch who did it, and are only peripherally concerned with WHY they did it or HOW they did it.

A public enquiry on the other hand is NOT so worried about WHO did it, but HOW they could do it, and WHY they did it.

The police try to catch the perpetrators, a public enquiry is about preventing it ever happening again. In fact, because the government decides who runs it and what their exact brief is, all this concern about Tories controlling such an investigation is merely bullshit smoke and mirrors politics being pulled over the public's eyes.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

66. I never suggested the Tories would control it.

Only that they would use it as a tool against Labour, since there can be NO OTHER POSSIBLE REASON for proposing that an inquiry start RIGHT NOW when there is nothing to inquire ABOUT.

If you can present a scenario in which holding a public enquiry RIGHT NOW doesn't impact the police investigation in a negative way, and actually produces results as to the whys and hows without having any basic information to work from, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you're just parroting a Tory talking point for no other reason, as far as I can tell, than to be contrary.

There is a right way to do this and many wrong ways to do this. You are suggesting that we follow the wrong way of doing it in order to satisfy your curiosity and your (well-founded) hatred of Blair.

I'm not opposed to having a public inquiry AFTER THE POLICE FINISH THEIR WORK. But until that's done, there's no information that any theoretical inquiry could use to determine what's happened.

As for a cover-up, show me one piece of actual evidence that points to anybody covering up anything about these attacks. One shred of evidence is all I ask.

Contrary to your curious opinion, the British government knows how to deal with terrorist attacks, unlike the current US administration. Also unlike the current US administration, they're not going to use it to whip up some kind of war frenzy. Notice that even Tony Blair has not used the attacks to justify the UK presence in Iraq.

I'm tired of arguing about this. I'm glad that you side with the Tories over Labour and the Lib Dems. Please just don't vote in the UK elections.

[Karmakaze]

68. There IS something to enquire about!!!

In fact the very most important thing of all - Did the government cause this bombing due to its policies?

Brilliant! I was waiting for this:

"As for a cover-up, show me one piece of actual evidence that points to anybody covering up anything about these attacks. One shred of evidence is all I ask."

Umm, how can I do that, unless a public enquiry is held to determine IF there has been any such attempts???

THAT is the whole point!

Come on, think about it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

69. Oy.

In fact the very most important thing of all - Did the government cause this bombing due to its policies?

Umm... that would entail knowing who did it, which is for the police to find out.

Umm, how can I do that, unless a public enquiry is held to determine IF there has been any such attempts???

Look, again, I'm not saying public enquiry = bad. Public enquiry + NOWNOWNOW = useless.

Let the police do their work. When that's done, you and the Tories can have all the fun you want.

[tavalon]

141. I have a question

Would you have opposed an immediate public inquiry into what happened at the twin towers on 9/11?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

144. Investigation, no.

Public inquiry, yes. It's pointless until a thorough investigation has been conducted. People are confusing investigation and analysis.

[alcibiades_mystery]

81. perfectly stated, yibbehobba

Red-assery. Nicely played.

[1932]

62. Jeez, don't you think that that helps at this stage?

And once the trial comes along, then everything will be public.

And for the sake of a successful investigation and the conviction of the guilty party, don't you think that you can keep your pants on until they reach the indictment stage?

Wouldn't it be a problem for the potential subjects of criminal investigation to know what the police are doing at every second? Don't you think that's probably why we don't know every detail of criminal investigations while they're proceding?

[Karmakaze]

64. Actually, no...

Firstly NOT everything will become public, only the evidence about who did it. The defence is not likely going to run to the press saying "Our clients could only carry out these bombings because the Government ignored warnings".

As for waiting for indictments, what if there are none??? Should we wait forever to have a public enquiry into how and why these bombings occured?

And once again, a police investigation is VERY different froma public enquiry - the public enquiry is NOT about who did it, but about how they were able to do it, and why they did it. No police investigation is ever gonna tell you that they were able to do it because warnings were ignored, and finding such things would in no way compromise the police investigation.

[1932]

72. Really?

- I don't understand your first paragraph. I believe police investigations are public records, and unless something is classified (protecting a source or an ongoing investigation) you can actually ask for police records and see what your public servants do in your name. And trials are totally public. Only in the most extreme and rare situations are court procedings closed from the public, and I believe the UK hasn't closed the courtroom doors in any terrorist proceedings yet (could be wrong, but I don't recall closed doors for any of the procedings yet).

- Your second paragraph: every inquiry I've ever seen comes about because the government shows that it can't conduct a proper investigation. You don't have an enquiry to ensure that indictments result. You have one to talk about why they didn't happen. It would be a mammoth waste of resources to run a parallel inquiry because you think indictments wont happen when there's no reason to believe they wont, and when it's totally in the realm of possibility that they will.


- If you want to have a "warnings were ignored" inquiry, go ahead. But you realize that's a completely different thing than a "why no indictment" inquiry. In that case, you wouldn't be interested in the police investigation at all because your focus would be on what they knew before the incident and not after.

If this is about warnings being ignored, at the very least there should be a credible allegation of a warning being ignored. I think a lot of people wish a warning were ignroed because they think Blair is evil (because he isn't totally good). But an inquiry should be based on more than wish, even if it's only slightly more than a wish.

[Tesla]

78. Kinda like Di.......huh

Crazy World we are in!!!

[1932]

43. An investigation to serve the political goals of rightwingers?

You don't see where that's going?

First clue that they don't care about the truth is that they want to do this on day three before anyone even knows what's going on.

I remember the day when the conspiracay theorists might have said the Tories want this now so that they can screw up the investigation which they know will ultimately lead to a right wing plot for world domination!

Not saying that public reflection and inquiries by the legislature are bad (there were some great ones in the 70s on the CIA!) but how about at least waiting until there's a possibility of a government consipiracty first!

[Karmakaze]

50. So was the Sept 11 enquiry to server the political goals of left wingers??

Come on, dont be hypocritical - this is not about left or right, it is about the public's right to know what happened, and what is being done about it.

Just cause the Tories are calling for it, does not mean its wrong to hold one, nor does it mean it will be their tool - in fact they will be making MUCH more hay out of Blairs refusal than if the enquiry had gone ahead, so that argument is bull, and you know it.

[1932]

60. How is a police investigation and criminal conviction hidden from the...

...public?

Does the public not know about every other crime committed in the UK? Does every crime require an inquiry?

The ones the government fucks up or reveals an inability to find the truth require an inquiry, and it's a little too soon to make that judgment, don't you think?

Or do you think there should be an automatic inquiry for every criminal investigation, running in parallel, because otherwise the public doesn't know what's going on?

[Karmakaze]

67. Actually you are being obtuse...

You and I both know that what we are talking about is VERY different from a CRIMINAL enquiry - we are talking about an enquiry into the policy issues surrounding the crime, not the crime itself.

Did British involvement in Iraq lead to the bombings? Did the government do everything possible to prevent them? What can and should be done NOW to prevent future bombings.

THAT is what a public enquiry is about, and you know it. And you ALSO know that a police investigation DOES NOT even LOOK at such questions, let alone answer them for the public.

[1932]

75. I wasnt' being obtuse. I assumed that Tories wanted enquiry in order to

get to the bottom of who did the crime.

If they just want an equiry into whether Iraq involvement caused the attack, go for it. But don't you think it would help to first know who did it?

How can you have that investigation until you know who did it?

[TruthIsAll]

115. Does this hurt your head, Will?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4069151

[Vladimir]

32. I'm not sure that is the problem

the mechanics of an independant inquiry are such that it would likely wait for the police investigation to finish before commencing anyhow. These things taken bloody months to go through the motions and report back, and that is once they are set in motion. The real problem, as I said above, is that it would result in a whitewash while giving the appearance of throughness.

[Walt Starr]

45. Precisely! The Parlimentary Inquiry can happen after the law enforcement

investigation, as it should.

[DoYouEverWonder]

70. Can't people walk and chew gum at the same time

Even the FNYD investigated themselves after 9-11 and they did it at the same time other investigations were going on. This is a bs excuse as far as I'm concerned.

[Walt Starr]

93. In this case, a RESOUNDING NO!

Look at what happened with the Iran-Contra hearings. Had Congress not jumped the gun and stuck its nose into the thing too early, Ollie North might still be sitting in prison.

You do not want any legislative hearings until AFTER law enforcement completes its portion. After they have done their job, indictments have come down, and cases have been ejudicated, THEN you can get the legislative bodies involved.

[DoYouEverWonder]

100. That's because Congress in their infinitely stupid wisdom

keeps making agreements with people that gives them imunity from having their statements used later on in any real trial.

That has nothing to do with conducting in internal investigation into how government and law enforcement responded to an emergency.

[Walt Starr]

105. And that investigation will only get in the way of the REAL investigation

Let them catch the perps, then have your investigation.

[DoYouEverWonder]

134. So who is running the real investigation?

and why should anyone, especially the PM, dictate the conditions of that investigation?

[Walt Starr]

145. Scotland Yard is running that investigation

and they are a damned fine investiative unit!

Let them finish their work, then get the Parliment involved.

[DoYouEverWonder]

52. An internal investigation

into how your emergency services and police responded to an incident is essential if you want to prevent future tragedies. This does not mean that anyone did anything wrong necessarily, but it is the only way you can find out so you can do it better the next time.

There is no reason why more then one investigation can't be run at a time. If they are done properly one shouldn't interfere or hamper the other. It is a bunch of self serving crap to try to hamper any legitimate investigation into what happened last week and only forces people to raise the question, "what are they trying to hide".

[Al-CIAda]

11. Coincidental 'exercises' like the war games on 9/11 as well.

Um, ok....

[passy]

164. you mean like the G8 meetings pulling huge numbers of police forces away

from London just to protect some stupid heads of state.

[punpirate]

12. If the British parliamentary system is anything like Congress...

... with regard to immunity for testimony, an inquiry by Parliament at the insistence of the Tories will certainly result in the guilty parties (in and out of government) being relieved of any culpability.

That said, Blair is a sycophant to Bush. He's no more interested in divining the truth than the Tories.

Cheers.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. There is a method to the madness...

discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1617452

Tories are being wankers. Surprise.

[unlawflcombatnt]

14. Took a page out of Bush's playbook.

Blair's actions sound reminiscent of the Bush plutocracy's reluctance to investigate after 9/11, and complete refusal to allow the final phase of the 9/11 investigation to be completed. Is Blair morphing into another Bush?

[mr blur]

15. Hold back on the tinfoil hats for now,

This is an expected knee-jerk move from the Tories. It is, in fact, the only thing they can do in order to be seen to be doing something. Cheap political point scoring from these wankers. And it IS a distraction. Does anyone really think that the security services and police are not doing their best to investigate this? Blair has blood on his hands, but he's not Bush.

[Disturbed]

17. Blair is twice as intelligent as Bush.

He made a bad deal with the Bush Regime for the re-colonization of Iraq but everyone makes mistakes. This was a collosal one but now he is stuck with it until he can extracte himself. He seems to be working on that. His domestic policies are not horrible, are they?

[Karmakaze]

35. Don't fall for that - just cause he's a nominal lefty does not mean...

he should not be held to the same standard - public enquiries are called after ALL major incidents whether natural or man-made. The point is for the PUBLIC to know what happened, how it happened, and what is being done about any mistakes made.

It is justice being SEEN to be done.

The police and intelligence services are definately NOT going to tell you anything that might make THEM look bad, or Blair for that matter, so a public enquiry is a MUST.

[Minstrel Boy]

18. Have you seen this from the CBC

re the coincident bombing exercises?
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/#night

"Peter Power is Managing Director of a London-based consulting firm that specializes in crisis management, Visor Consultants - which on the morning of July 7 was co-incidentally running a security exercise for a private firm, simulating multiple bomb explosions in the London Underground, at the same stations that were subsequently attacked in real life."

From the CBC audio, Paul Thompson transcribed this:

Solomon: "We've heard something quite extraordinary - could be a coincidence or not - that your firm, on the very day that the bombs went off in London, were running an exercise simulating three bombs going off, in the very same tube stations that they went off. How did this happen? Coincidence, or were you acting on information that you knew?

Power: I don't think you could say that we had some special insight into the terrorist network, otherwise I would be under arrest myself. The truth of it is..

Solomon: But it is a coincidence..

Power: It's a coincidence, and it's a spooky coincidence. Our scenario was very similar - it wasn't totally identical, but it was based on bombs going off, to the time, the locations, all this sort of stuff. But it wasn't an accident, in the sense that London has a history of bombs, and the reason why our emergency services did so well, and prepared probably better than any other city in the world, sadly they have to be. So it wasn't exactly rocket science or totally out of the pale to come up with that scenario unusual though it be to stop the exercise and go into real time, and it worked very well, although there was a few seconds when the audience didn't realize whether it was real or not.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

19. I don't think you could say that we had some special insight

into the terrorist network<<

Uhhhh no.... they have a special insight into your goings ons. Think about it. They may have been using you for cover.

[Old and In the Way]

22. Interesting this trend to outsourcing government functions.

Privitizing "crisis management"? Hmmmmm.

BTW, MB, did you clear this post with GT? :-)

[Karmakaze]

42. Just like the Pentagon excercise of Sept 11...

Where just "coincidentally" they were holding an exercise where terrorists crashed an aircraft into the Pentagon.

Coincidence upon coincidence upon coincidence - at some point you just have to say it's too much.

[Bluebear]

61. And Ghouliani just happened to be in London!

Having breakfast!

I am not a conspiracy fan but the coincidences are just astounding, aren't they?

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. He gave a speech to the Local Government Association on Wednesday

at their annual conference. It's in various news stories.

[1932]

98. Naomi Klein writes that Security Busininess in Brazil is a $4-5 Billion

industry. In South Africa, it's worth 1-2 Billion (IIRC).

That's the business Rudy is in. Fear, inequality and poverty. It's worth billions.

[Garbo 2004]

147. Except the Brit gov't wasn't holding the exercise. A private firm was

as part of its emergency mgt program. Quite a different matter. Like a firm having a firedrill. Given it's Britain, with a history of bombings and the possibility of attacks, it seems that it's a type of emergency exercise some companies have found prudent to do, unfortunately.

[Old and In the Way]

20. It's like the weather up here in Maine, Will.

If you don't like it, wait 5 minutes.

Everyday, things get a little wierder, and I turned pro a long time ago.

[mopaul]

21. anyone who still thinks blair is cool is a fool

the whole damn war and the ghostly terrorists are all a by-product of bush/blair. cheney and bush did the same fucking thing after the new york attacks and the anthrax murders, they called daschle and strongly suggested moving on and not looking into it too deeply.

excuse me?

[Frederik]

83. And then Daschle got an anthrax letter

when he started questioning the Patriot Act.

[1932]

23. Did Democrats demand independent 9/11 inquiry on 9/14?

[Bluebear]

24. There is no "cooling off time" implied in Blair's statement though

"The Prime Minister will use a Commons statement to underline his confidence in the intelligence services and reject demands for an inquiry."

Does that not sound pretty final to you?

[1932]

26. I think Pitt admitted above that he read the story wrong.

And I agree with theMag's level head on this one.

Let the police have their investigation. The Tories are crazy.

It's not "cooling off time" to actually conduct the criminal investigation without having the Tories trying to run a parallel investigation only for the purpose of talking political shots at labour.

Do they want to solve this crime or do they just want to get back in power so they can REALLY start running the neoliberal imperialist board?

[Bluebear]

28. Well good for Pitt, but I maintain it reads wrong.

Even if Blair did not imply it and the Tories are making politics out of it, what alarmed me was the finality of Blair's statement, which translated in my mind to "let our intelligence handle this, no public meddling."

[1932]

31. Do you think the Democrats should have demanded a 9/11 invetigation by

congress on 9/14, before anyone knew what happened and before anyone knew what Republicans were going to do?

What are you investigating? What does it serve to politicize an investigation before you even know what happened?

[Bluebear]

33. Reminds me too much of Bush I guess.

As you know he tried to nix the 9/11 inquiry from ever taking place at all.

[1932]

39. Thanks to Bush, we all see the world in black and white. Blair couldn't do

anything good because he's bad.

Blair's either with progressives or he's against progressives, and we all know he's against progressives.

Thank you George Bush for showing me how to see the world. I owe much more of my world view to you than I'm willing to admit to myself.

/Sarcasm off.

[Bluebear]

40. Wow you let me have it there, boy!

Is this always how you discuss things?

[1932]

47. Not "always" but this is the second time I've characterized the anti-Blair

sentiments on this board as a manifestation of the Bush, "with us or against us" mantra.

I see the attitudes towards Blair here as being the epitome of the polarization of good and evil mindset that Republicans are desperate to get Americans into so that liberals can do great things like eat their own so that they can serve up electoral victory for rightwingers.

Look at this thread. It's one of three or four on DU right now echoing a TORY TALKING POINT! Hello?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[1932]

55. How would me being British or American augment or detract from

my argument that Bush and Republicans thrive on polarization?

And if you're inclined not to find my posts credible, why would you find my profile credible?

[Bluebear]

58. Yes you're absolutely right about everything.

Have a wonderful day!

[Karmakaze]

65. Would it have BEEN a Tory talking point if Blair had been the first...

to call for such an investigation???

That is my entire point on this thread - Blair is the one playing into the right wingers hands, because he has made it possible for them to say he's hiding something.

If he had come out yesterday saying we will hold a public enquiry into what happened and why, then the Tories would have been screwed.

[Vladimir]

73. And the Tories and their talking point are always wrong

because they are against us. Right?

[1932]

76. The Tories actually have a long history of always being wrong.

Empirically, they're wrong about just about everything. But you don't have to polarize opinion to come to that conclusion and work people into a black and white frenzy. You just have to look at the facts.

[Vladimir]

77. Pretty much the same applies to Blair

but we have had this discussion already...

[1932]

82. I totally disagree

I think it's the hysterical polarization, "with us or against us" mentality that prevents people from comprehending Labour's progressive achievements.

I found the BBC coverage of Live8 issues absurd. I think people would see through their "Africans don't want debt relief" crap if people weren't so inclined to think "Oh, Blair's behind it so it must be bad."

I also don't think people would be regurgitating Tory talking points on this issue if not for the Good or Evil glasses people are wearing.

[Vladimir]

85. I know you do

but I think its your refusal to see things in context which makes you believe that the Labour government is progressive.

[1932]

94. I envy your certainty that you see the world as it really is.

What makes you think that I refuse to see the context?

Show me the context that I'm missing.

Should we talk about baby bonds again?

[Vladimir]

97. For goodness sake, at least call them by their correct

name, if you want to talk about them. Child trust funds. "Baby bonds" is a term relevant to the US political context, but utterly irrelevant to the UK one. And that isn't semantics, it is crucial to understanding why they have nothing to do with, for example, child poverty.

If you saw the context, you wouldn't think that tuition fees, for example, were a progressive measure. They would be in the US, but they were a reactionary move in the UK.

[1932]

106. That's your argument? I'm calling them the wrong thing?

What if we call them this: tax free gain on an investment that you can use on anything you want, which will reduce indebtedness of the middle class and encourage savings. They will do more than just about anything else we do as a society to put a lot of people on firm footing when they enter the stage of their life when they have to lay out an investment like buying a home and or and education in order to enter into and remain middle class.

On the one hand, liberal critics say they're worth nothing. On the other, conservatives say they'll cost tax coffers millions in unpaid capital gainst and tax breaks. Which is it?

They'll "cost" millions. Well, really, they'll be an accumulation of significant economic power in the hands of people in a way that will help a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have that money. They create an incentive to engage in very socially beneficial and personally valuable behaviour: saving so that you don't have to go into deep debt at a time when going into debt might be the difference between a person being safely middle class or working poor for the rest of her life.

As for education. Yeah. It's not fee. But you can have free, crappy education which doesn't maximise the value of three years investment in a university education, or you can have a good education, that is socially and personally valuable, and you can push the costs of it onto a time and place where they can be born without causing too much damage. The tuition plan pushes them on to a future you only if you make a decent income, and the loan is completely interest free. The present value of that loan is much more than tuition program that liberal critics of the plan wanted. It's a better plan, with a brilliant allocation of benefits and burdens, which ensurse that universities get the money they need to do their job, and ensure that nobody is strangled by education debt.

Tories would never have done either of those things. They would have run down the schools, they would have had a tuition plan that had a large interest component in order to makes banks rich (or they would have just forced students to continue their overderaft indebtedness, and they NEVER would have had child trust funds in any form, since desperation at age 18 is such an important part of reproducing Tory power).

[Vladimir]

110. No, that is not my argument

as you well must realise. I just want you to use the correct terminology so that we both know what is being talked about - for precision, if you like. As for child trust funds, 500 quid at birth, cashable at 18, lets calculate this at... 6-7% interest annually, I am being generous... its about a grand and a half per person at 18, maybe twice that if it is topped up at 7 and 11. That is how much the state invests, parents can contribute extra, but then we had ISAs all along. It is indeed an extra incentive to invest, but from the state's point of view it is a quite small expenditure. At 600,000 births a year, we are talking about between 1-2 billion spent a year. Compared to the expenditures people now face at university and adulthood in general (and tuition fees are only part of the cost, the worst debt is racked up through student loans - they may be interest free, but they are still debt), it is an utter pittance as provided by the state. What it will do is enable the better off to set their kids up, if they use the maximum additional allowed yearly investment (1200), and the poorer people who have to rely on the cash provided by the state will still be left behind.

On tuition fees, you make the incorrect claim that the choice is between crappy state funded education, and tuition fees. This is simply not the case: the higher education was in no way crappy. It was lacking some funding (mainly on the research side), but that was largely Thatcher's legacy, and could have been reversed in any number of ways from the state's coffers. The shift to tuition fees has certainly not fixed it, which is why nearly every university in the UK is now talking about privatizing sooner or later - tuition fees have opened the floodgates. They were always an ideological step along the road to privatisation, not some redistributative measure.

[1932]

111. Don't miss my edits, plus:

Education: You can't get something from nothing. Thatcher ruined higher education in the UK. If the UK is going to be able to reproduce a middle class, they have to do something about getting more money into the schools.

The tuition plan is debt, but it's not debt without reward. You don't have to pay if the education doesn't pay off for you. You don't have to pay more than a fixed percentage of your salary, so the loan itself will never become too much of a burden. You have your whole life to pay it off.

Is british education so bad that people can't (1) figure out the present value of that kind of loan, and (2) appreciate the political/social implications of that plan: the government has an incentive to create well-paying jobs for college graduates or they don't get a return on their investment in education, and students have an incentive to go to university. And no student will turn down college because they can't afford the fees or the risk (is there a risk in having to pay for college out of 10% of your above-average college graduate salary?).

The argument that the money from CTF isn't worth it sounds like the argument that Africans don't want to eliminate their washington consensus-condiditoned debt burdens. OF COURSE it's worth it to have an incentive to save in way that reduces your desperation when you turn 18 and start having to make investiments that will determine whether you will be working poor or middle class.

I can't believe I'm the one accused of missing the context!

[Vladimir]

114. Well, it seems you can't believe a number of things

you will forgive me, by the way, if this is my last on the matter. I have enjoyed our enchages, but work needs doing.

On education, you fail to appreciate that the poorer in society are quite debt averse, regardless of the nature of the debt. You also fail to address the political point which I raised. However, most imporetantly, you still want this to somehow be a better system than one in which your university education is paid for out of general taxation. And that requires a belief that there isn't the money to pay for this out of general taxation - but hang on, we are paying for it out of an additional tax. Well, then the question is simply, where are we taxing - and the system as it stands does not tax based on the ability to pay (beyond the cutoff, this is a flat graduate tax, and since all flat taxes have a cutoff, it is essentially a flat tax), it taxes based on whether one went to university. And that is regressive.

On CTF, I have said what I have to say - it will merely reinforce inequality. Those who have will invest, and those who ain't got won't.

on edit: I should maybe explain the flat tax thing better, since it seems that the percentage of salary aspect makes it a progressive tax. But this is not so, since the total amount paid is flat - every university graduate contributes the same, just over a different period of time.

[1932]

118. My last post on this for a while too:

People who already go to college go into debt on an overdraft which then gets converted to heavy profit for the bank in the form of intereste and fees.

An interest-free loan is going to reduce the bank profit and increase the graduate's profit by a not insignificant degree.

Poor people who chose a job instead of college are avoiding debt, yes. But they'd be crazy to avoid this kind of debt: it's interest free, you don't pay it if you don't make the median income, you pay no more than 10% of your salary, and you have your whole life to pay it back. That is the kind of debt ANYONE should be willing to take on. You really can't lose. I'm so sure that the difference in salaries on average between uni grads and non-uni grads is SIGNIFICANTLY more than 10% at least in the third year of employment, if not in the first and second, and I'm sure that as time goes by, the difference increases dramatically.

In a nation of gamblers, I'm sure it'd be hard to find anyone who couldn't appreciate that those are decent odds.

I agree that it would be great to have totally free education. But if there's no political will for it, then this a fantastic option. Rather than tax the hell out of lot of working class people who grew up in a system that screwed them out of a chance for a decent future, you'll have transitional years where the costs are shifted onto people who benefit from these new, great educations at well-funded universities (and their employers, who benefit from their labor). You do this for a couple decades, the economy grows because you've allocated costs and benefits effectively, and when you have had a generation or two that has had this system, then you can talk serioulsy about creating the political will for totally free education.

To pass up on this system now (especially to criticize it for not being progressive enough) and say that you'd prefer nothing if you can't have totally free tuition is to cut off your nose to spite your face.

On CTF: the beauty is that even low investments compounded over 18 years turn into rather big returns. It's a long period of time the government is askign you to sit on your income, and they're giving you a very good incentive to do so. If you want to cut off rich people from this, go for it. But to cut off everyone else is crazy. It's a sensible plan. I don't mind if rich people are included because almost everyone's poor when they're 18. Even the child of rich parents isn't assured any parental wealth at age 18. It would be nice to figure out which ones are getting the big gifts from the parents, or have the contract with Manchester City and cut them out from the tax benefits, but there are are a lot of other places I'd be looking first for rich people to pay their fair share than the loaded 18 year olds.

[noamnety]

91. If we had demanded a 9/11 investigation right away

Perhaps the "police investigation" wouldn't have involved rushing to remove, destroy and recycle the evidence before it could be analyzed.

Just a thought.

[WilliamPitt]

44. I think that makes the most sense

Silly me, trusting Tories.

[Karmakaze]

54. Holy cow, why does everyone think the Tories would run it????

A public enquiry is run by an independant person appointed by the government - the tories would have NO SAY at all in what went on.

[Vladimir]

57. Yes, and we should note

that historically, independant inquiries are soft on the government. Indeed, one of the unexpected offshoots of an independant inquiry into this (if properly conducted) might well be the dropping of the ID card scheme...

[Vladimir]

30. They fucking well should have done n/t

[1932]

34. It would have been an absurd political circus because they wouldn't have

been doing anything besides speculating about things nobody knew anything about.

The inquiry they did have only had any power because they could look at what was actually done.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. It's the Tories.

We already know their solution to terrorism: Deport all immigrants. I doubt their stance has changed much in the last three months.

[Vladimir]

38. Yeah, and it still came back with a whitewash

Actually, I think such inquiries achieve next to nothing in practice, so I don't much care for them as anything *but* a political circus. And holding politicians feet to the fire is something I support 24/7, come hell or high water.

[JackRiddler]

169. Answer to your question.

"Did Democrats demand independent 9/11 inquiry on 9/14?"

No, they didn't. Is this supposed to be their credit?

It's yet another why Democratic politicians have become the liberal collaborationist wing of the Republican party.

Graham (and Goss) were meeting with the alleged financer of Mohamed Atta, Pakistani ISI chief Mahmud Ahmed, on the morning of 9/11/01. Did Graham ever investigate the ISI? He was in charge of the official Joint Inquiry. He said the report had been censored to remove information about foreign governments financing "Al-Qaeda." Did he ever do anything to reveal what he meant? Did he stand up for the truth?

Nancy Pelosi did make some noises in September about investigating CIA connections to Bin Ladin. She was howled at and shut up.

Toricelli demanded a board of inquiry in October. The ethics committee promptly discovered that he was a very, very bad boy and his career was torpedoed.

Anthrax hit the offices of Daschle and Leahy at around the same time. They reacted by dropping their objections to the USA PATRIOT Act.

The anthrax was traced back to American stocks. Did they demand an investigation then? Ha ha.

McKinney posed the obvious questions about 9/11: who knew what when? She was called a lunatic and attacked by members of her own party.

Wellstone, political target #1 for Cheney, led the charge against the Iraq war resolution. He was the only senator running for reelection who did so.

His plane fell out of the sky. Did the Democrats ask to investigate?

Dean briefly questioned 9/11. Everyone rushed to distance themselves, and then he was subjected to the most transparent assassination-by-media in U.S. election history.

How about some backbone, Democrats?

[Kazak]

71. "insisting such a move would distract from the task of catching the perps"

Heavens, you wouldn't want to preform and investigation. Meanwhile, we'll just go back to hoping the bombers turn themselves in.

:crazy:

[leesa]

79. That's right. And then of course there was the mock terrorist attack

on the transit system the SAME DAY, just like 9-11. Then there were the witnesses who saw white people placing what they thought might be bombs.

Same playbook Bush used, eh Will?

[whatever4]

80. haha :)

I had to smile when I read your post, me being one of the oft yelled at "conspiracy theorists". Kudos for posting a story like this which gets right into those conspiracy theories. Does my heart good to read the truth, people interested in the truth, no matter what it is. Not for the fact that I think I'm "right", but maybe for the fact that I feel like I'm in the right place. With folks that discuss with their intellects more than their egos.

Personally, I'd rather be completely wrong, about possible conspiracies in our government, or even the Brits. For me and the likes of me to be way out in left field on this would be absolutely a dream come TRUE, I would SO much rather be wrong. For my children if nothing else.

About the only other point I'd like, one I've been making frequently, is that whether our government was involved or NOT, the actions we're talking about were a conspiracy. By definition. The terrorism is not an act of nature.

It is not a question of whether or not conspiracies are involved. It is ONLY a question of who is involved in them.

People like me like to question the possibility of our own government because, especially lately, they're not only lying about what they do, they've lied about why they want to do it, why they DID do it, and when. Such as the pre-war bombings in Iraq, they were basically illegal, crimes against humanity. Sanctioned by the government, but not by the people which that government represents. In looking at that attitude, it is EASY to see how that mentality could carry over into other decisions, and in all likelihood, HAS been carried over into other decisions. Added to that is their apparent disregard for human life. The grand total is a government not to be trusted. The likelihood of their being involved in covert, illegal, violent acts is NOT one to be denied.

And as the strongest nation in the world, it surely is our responsibility to force our government to use military power responsibly. As loyal Americans, it's certainly the least we can do. Else our freedoms mean nothing at all.

[whatever4]

87. I didn't notice the author, KUDOS Mr Pitt

Hey, I didn't notice it was Mr Will Pitt wrote that, how obtuse of me, one of my favorite writers, KUDOS to you Will :)

[BiggJawn]

84. Why have an Inquiry? Everyone KNOWS Iran did it...

"Why", says Blair the Poodle, "Just ask my mast-er-good friend George Bush!"

So is Tony thinking "Eh, Churchill gave up the 'Lusitania', after all..."

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[dogday]

121. Coincidences-fact or fiction?

In a murder investigation, coincidences are all they have sometimes to go on. Ask a detective about that and see if they don't tell you that there are no such things as a coincidence in a murder investigation... would this not be essentially the same thing?

[unhappycamper]

88. Big Brother comes to the UK with a vengeance.

He (Blair) is expected to tell his counterparts governments must ensure operators keep data on telephone and internet exchanges for up to a year.

A full year of data on every keystroke and every telphone conversation for every person? :wtf:

[Vladimir]

89. Actually, only on who you call and write to

repeat after me: Blair's is a progressive government, it is not authoritarian, they are doing their best...

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. A public enquiry would prejudice any court cases

and so cannot be started until the chances of charging anyone looks nil. It's far too early for a 'quick enquiry', which is what the Tories have called for.

Those in the USA may not realise that British rules on discussing evidence for court cases before the case starts are much stricter here. During the court case, only what is said in open court can be publicised, and speculation by journalists is banned. Trials have sometimes had to be stopped because of public articles. Having a public enquiry would be even worse - it would give the stamp of authority to what it says. The idea is that a jury makes up its mind on the evidence presented to it in court, not viewpoints it has heard in varying amounts elsewhere.

[1932]

96. Congressional inquiry of Iran-Contra caused Oliver North conviction to...

...be overturned.

Republicans invited him to speak about his illegal activities. He did. He ended up being convicted in a court of law. IIUC, that conviction was overturned because the courts decided that there was no way he could get a fair trial after his congressional testimony had been discussed so widely.

[Bucky]

103. Sort of. Kind of. Actually it was a Democratic Congress who did this

North's conviction was overturned because prosecutors used evidence that was uncovered as a result of his testimony, which the Democrats allowed to happen under the umbrella of immunity from prosecution. A traitor and embezzler went free because they politicized what should have been treated as a criminal prosecution.

The irony of North getting off on a technicality is lost on me, of course.

[Bucky]

99. Thank you for this. Once again, the impulse to cry Conspiracy proves dumb

It's hard to stand firm when your knees jerk around too much.

[Telly Savalas]

101. This article makes it clear that Blair sent some of his backbenchers...

to plant the bombs. It's impossible that Blair's refusal is simply political jousting with the Tories.

[Bucky]

104. Backbenchers? Or was it Sherry?

[quisp]

108. Move along! Nothing to see here! Move along n/t

[ChickMagic]

109. I had a similar experience

I had always poo-pooed JFK conspiracy theories. Pure bunk. UNTIL... I heard Poppy Bush say he had no idea where he was or what he was doing that day. To my knowledge, he's the only person of a certain age who didn't have that snapshot memory. All of a sudden, everything I thought I knew was wrong.

[dogday]

124. I don't trust poppy

I believe he is the string-puller.....

[ChickMagic]

139. I don't trust Poppy either

And he's a lot more savvy than his mentally challenged son. That makes him more dangerous.

[dogday]

143. Absolutely--

He had CIA and years of White House Experience with him, not to mention he was CEO of Carlyle till right before the war when Carlyle starting to earn billions from this war....

It all ties together and the roads all lead to Poppy...

[ChickMagic]

153. Well, Reagan didn't trust him

If my feeble memory is correct, I think he moved the Bushes far, far away. Babs complained about being treated like a servant. So, on top of the plain ol' evil, there's vindictiveness.

[theboss]

112. Why shouldn't he reject the Tories?

If the Tories are going to use the attack for political theater at this early stage - while the criminal investigation is still ongoing -Blair should reject them out of hand.

[Catrina]

122. You may be correct

However, what you are advocating, no public inquiry until law-enforcement completes its investigation, is exactly what happened here after 9/11. Bush's argument was the same as Blair's.

Bush prevailed ~ as, most likely, will Blair. Should we expect a different result now? What exactly was the result of our law-enforcement investigation?

Since both Bush and Blair have insisted that 'terrorism' is a global war, why not establish an International organization which would be charged with public investigations (our 9/11 investigation was hardly public, after all) of terrorist attacks, thereby eliminating charges of partisanship in any particular country? This could take place after the country in question has completed its investigation.

Blair's problem, like Bush's, is he has very little credibility with much of the world's population.

Today, both he and Bush are out politicizing the London attacks, Bush using them to get the Patriot Act extended and 'strengthened' here in the US.

Blair had the gall to ask how anyone could be so depraved as to cause the deaths of innocent civilians!!!

Is it any wonder that we are extremely suspicious of anything either of these two men propose? I would not be too quick to condemn anyone who questions every word that comes from either one of them. Put the blame where it belongs. These two launched a war based on lies and as a result, tens of thousands of innocent people have died. Every word they say should be questioned, imo.

[second edition]

113. This is so interesting, Bush and Blair and others blamed this on

al Queda,first thing, without a blink. Of course, the media went along for the ride. Not even a wait and see attitude from our leaders.No speculation from them. Others were more cautious, but not Bush or Blair. John Kerry in his statement, wasn't even ready to blame this on al Queda, using the term terrorists broadly and not pointing any fingers in any direction just yet.
I can't bring myself to believe the conspiracy theories that Bush and Blair had a hand in this, I can believe they are opportunists and took advantage of the situation though.

[patcox2]

116. Politics, not conspiracy; his rivals for power want inquiry to embarrass.

This is pretty run of the mill politics. Blair is just opposing a politically motivated call for an enquiry made by his political enemies who would just use it to criticize Blair.

Its kinda like Clinton opposing the Lewinsky inquiry.

[Logansquare]

148. Monica Lewinsky killed 40 people? Who knew? n/t

[spanone]

165. More like Bush* opposing the 9/11 Commission.

[patcox2]

117. Clinton opposes Lewinsky inquiry, proof of conspiracy.

Right.

[dogday]

120. The relatives of the people killed

and critically wounded may call for their own investigation. Who wants to ignore that call?

[Alizaryn]

123. All I can say is that if I were a British Citizen

I'd be raising hell about that decision.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Zorra]

126. This article is either some type of propaganda through fact omission

or Lord Bushpoodle had Negroponte and Goss send the el CIAda death squad in to boost his and Commander Cuckoobananas' flagging ratings.

My God, will we be having terrorist attacks every time some "fascist asshole of state" or their pet war drops in popularity polls, or some talking head investor wants to manipulate the stock market by bombing subways for profit?

[allemand]

127. Howard has already backtracked:

Conservative leader Michael Howard praised the government's response to last week's atrocity. (...)

Earlier Mr Howard had called for an inquiry, to see if any lessons could be learned.

In the Commons he said it should be of limited scope with its remit determined by the government and that it should not interfere with the current efforts to identify the dead or catch the bombers.

Mr Blair said everyone involved would want to see if there could be improvements in their response.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4670945.stm

[Zorbuddha]

128. They want to be farmers, too.

And goatherds.

Us-and-themism ensures war and abrogates any chance for peace. We are on the wave of intractable, shortsighted stubbornness. The military industrial complex governs policy, and all opportunities to shine a light on unflattering truth will be squelched.

Toast, we are.

[spanone]

129. A 'ludicrous diversion'? Oh really Mr. Blair?

Am I missing something here?

[helderheid]

130. I'm recording the BBC interview

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/drive.shtml

click Thursday, an hour in or so. I am recording this before it disappears.

[jsamuel]

131. Good idea

make sure you post it somewhere and send it to people

[helderheid]

133. will do

[tavalon]

132. So is it now PC

to mention how this looks really, really fishy and how it was all too convenient?

A couple of days ago, people were mentioning this and getting their asses handed to them.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[Miss Chybil]

135. Don't you think the police and intelligence agencies should finish their

jobs before someone calls for an inquiry into their findings? It only makes sense to me. What can they inquire about right now? All the evidence isn't in. IF once the evidence points to something "fishy," then an inquiry should be demanded - not requested.

[proud patriot]

136. I wasn't suspicious til this

x(

[Skip Intro]

137. The mistake is to think there is a line which bush/blair inc won't cross

When you credit them with basic humanity, you set yourself up.

Look at the track record.

Look at the laundry list.

Not to sound like a broken record, but we've got 2000, 9*11, anthrax, terror, terror alerts, Afghanistan, 2002, Dems=terrorists, Iraq, 2004 - all stianed with blood and fear and death and destruction and lies lies lies. All presided over by bushco and/or blair.

Now London.

How could one not suspect?

I put nothing past them.

I know where you can get a tinfoil hat, if you need one.

:tinfoilhat:

[OrlandoGator]

140. We've reached a point where determining who is guilty is "ludicrous".

Welcome to Bizarroworld.

[Walt Starr]

146. Nobody said that

Having a concurrent investigation while law enforcement conducts their investigation is what's ludicrous.

THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION UNDER WAY! LET IT COMPLETE BEFORE STARTING ANOTHER!!!

[Taxloss]

149. It would be stupid to order an inquiry while a criminal investigation is

under way. No offence Will, but you're way off target here. Let's wait until the police establish what happened.

There was a conspiracy here, no doubt about it, no theory - it was a conspiracy to set off bombs in London. And our police are trying to find out what happened. We know it was organised by a group, not an individual, but that is ALL we know. The rest is speculation. Speculate if you want, but call it speculation. Remember, the first fishy thing is probably a red herring.

[frictionlessO]

160. I am seriously becoming a fan of your posts Taxloss!

Well stated and concur.

Stating when you as a DU'ers are speculating will save a whole lot of trouble with whoever opposes your viewpoint.

[shance]

161. You kidding right? Why in the world would it be "stupid" for an inquiry?

Anyone with a sturdy cerebrum knows that the longer an investigation/inquiry is stalled, the higher chance no resolution and/or charges will be brought. In other words, do the soft shoe stall and it makes it much harder to bring the guilty ones to justice.

It would only HELP to have more people working on this as diligently as possible. It would only make it better. It would provide more active pursuence and "light" on the investigation.

Whats interesting is the "conspiracy driven" excuses coming from those who have been calling a halt for asking the important necessary questions and taking the necessary actions to better locate those who are committing such crimes.

This is a stalling tactic.

[Taxloss]

163. The Police are investigating. That's the inquiry right now.

Parliamentary inquiries are slow, contemplative, and happen after the fact. At the moment this is a murder inquiry.

Indeed, a parliamentary inquiry or smilar exercise would probably do little but disrupt and slow the Police in their work.

As I say, speculate away, but call it speculation.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

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

[libodem]

154. And where is Bush?

Off riding his bicycle I presume...funny how they were practicing subway terror drills that day. Kind of like Cheney was down in the basement somewhere practicing drills on 9/11 and none of the military jets were supposed to scramble. I think they needed a good distraction from the DSM.

[Burried News]

158. A man who gave George Bush the time to fix the intelligence

Who pressured the BBC execs for telling the truth, who pressured his legal counsel to change their opinion and who has David Kelly's blood on his hands can't be trusted. It is just that simple.

Blair is a liar and a fraud. The London bombings are a British problem, for the British to come to terms with and deal with.

But anyone who discourages the freest possible dicussion of events is making a big mistake. A mistake which in a worst case scenario may result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. We simply cannot afford to be disuaded from any effort to dig out the truth and certainly not because we find it inconceivable that ...

What would Leonardo DaVinci do to find the truth? - he dug up dead bodies in the middle of the night and dismembered them to learn the anatomy which we now recognize as the 'truth'. Adelante

[sintax]

159. Operation Gladio

Google it.

Conspiracy Theory is a quaint notion.

Brutal insidious Conspiracy Fact is the way the Powers that be operate.

How can you live in this world do any amount of research and be in doubt about the conspiracies going on all around on a daily-hourly basis in the CIA-MI6-ISI-ETC....

[Zhade]

162. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to yell?

Just sayin'.

[WilliamPitt]

166. Yup

Felt pretty dumb about this thread all day.

[shance]

168. Why William?

Judging by the response this is a very important question that warrants exposure and accountability. You done good.

I keep wondering why in the world would Blair block ANY inquiry or investigation towards finding out more helpful information?

Makes no sense. That's the whole problem (and solution?).

It just makes no sense.

[helderheid]

171. don't feel dumb

[Vinca]

167. I'm brushing off the tin foil chapeau. Amazing . . . nt

[Endangered Specie]

172. Keep yelling at the conspiracy theorists...

If there is any substance to any of the 'theories' you can count on the Torries finding it.

[Moderator]

174. Locking....

This thread has run its course.



DU Moderator