If Obama is elected in November, what do you think he will do about 911?

[dailykoff]

Until last week, I was pretty optimistic that Obama would at least put the neocon trolls on the defensive, if not actually into prison. But after his FISA flip-flop, I'm beginning to wonder if Obama will turn out to be a Clinton-style DINO. Toward the end of his 2006 book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama discusses /911 and its effects, but he keeps it pretty mainstream as far as who did it:

Now chaos had come to our doorstep. As a consequence, we would have to act differently, understand the world differently. (p. 292)

However, he also shows a clear understanding of what /911 was all about politically:

The PR strategy worked; by the fall of 2002, a majority of Americans were convinced that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and at least 66 percent believed (falsely ) that the Iraqi leader had been personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. (p. 293)

Does Obama even know that the whole thing was a scam? That I can't decide. I hope to hell he does, and for a long time I assumed he did, but after last week Pelosi impersonation, I'm not so sure. I'm starting to suspect that he's either hopelessly clueless or hopelessly corrupt.

What do you think?

[AZCat]

1. As I said to Hope2006 not long ago...

I think there is scant likelihood of another investigation of any sort into 9/11-related issues, regardless who wins either the presidential election or who holds control of Congress. For the past year or two there has been a lot of talk about investigations of the Bush administration in non-9/11 areas, including some discussion of impeachment, and look at how far that has gone. If our elected representatives are that unwilling to look into issues that (IMO) have far more evidence in their favor than the various 9/11 theories there isn't much chance they're going to touch an arguably more sensitive topic when there is political hay to be made elsewhere.

[dailykoff]

2. Well, for once I agree with you,

except for the part about making political hay. If it was hay they were after, they could have been rolling in the giga-bushels for the last six years, but instead they've consistently contravened the wishes of their constituents and voted for one heinous giveaway after another, the latest being the overwhelmingly unpopular FISA amendment. I don't know if they're addicted to payola, getting blackmailed, or both, but they sure as hell aren't trying to score points with voters.

[AZCat]

3. You're assuming it was only Bush and his buddies who were responsible.

If the setup for 9/11 was truly as complex as some of the theories would seem, then it would have to include others besides Bush and his band of cronies. Uncovering this potential viper's nest would not be in the best interests of any congress critter, IMO (at least if they valued their seats on various committees). Much better to go after the other guys on the typical, "safe" issues.

[dailykoff]

6. I'm pretty certain it was Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and their buds in the NSA/CIA

along with a few key private-sector players like Silverstein and Cheney's oil buddies. I imagine a few DC traitors like Lieberman and maybe Hoyer were in on the planning, and a few others like the Clintons were in knowt, but I really don't think too many others knew what was up. Leahy and Daschle clearly didn't, or they wouldn't have needed to be anthraxed, although I have a hunch Leahy has figured it out or at least most of it.

The other big problem with going after safe issue is the only issue ANYONE has gone after for the last seven years has been terra, with the exception of McKinney and Kucinich, and I'm beginning to wonder if Obama is even aware that the whole thing is a fraud. And if they can get away with not telling him, I'm sure they won't.

[AZCat]

8. Maybe the anthrax attacks were a false flag to throw everyone off their trail.

Couldn't Daschle have been partly responsible? I never liked him anyway. Has anyone checked to make sure he wasn't heavily invested in a certain oil services company (that happened to branch out into other areas) prior to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

[SDuderstadt]

14. "The Clintons were in the know"?

Do you have ANY proof of that at all? Or just pictures of Bill and Hillary attending functions with the living former presidents and their spouses?

[behave]

4. ask congress to declare it a national holiday sounds like the mor thing to do

[dailykoff]

5. Yeah we could call it Freedom Day

short for Bush and Cheney Get Out of Jail Free day. :grr:

[behave]

15. cave in cook-outs with faith-based burgers, fisa fries & a pro-death penalty dj

[Bassman66]

7. Is Obama like Kennedy?

Will he stand up to the military-industrial complex?

I think he'll bomb Iran as a distraction.

[dailykoff]

9. That's what I'm wondering too.

He could either turn out to be like Kennedy or like Clinton, and right now he's making Clinton look like Karl Marx.

[biermeister]

10. Obama will do as much to reopen a new 911 investigation

as he did to block the new FISA legislation.

[Diane_nyc]

11. This discussion is a trap - perhaps unintentionally so, but let's not fall into it, please.

Remember, folks, this is DU. We're not supposed to speak ill of Obama here.

Politicians, in general, do what they are pressured to do, if there's enough pressure from any given direction. Remember, the Jersey Girls managed to pressure even Bush to consent to an investigation, albeit a limited and compromised one.

So the question we should be asking is how we can build an effective grassroots movement to call for government accountability regarding 9/11.

Various huge roadblocks have been put up in our way. How can we deal with them?

[dailykoff]

12. Um, honest discussion of Democrats is not a "trap," it's the raison d'etre

of this website, which is not your personal propaganda organ, as much as you might like it to be.

:wtf:

[Diane_nyc]

13. My concern re: discussion about Obama

From the http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html">main rules page:

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

From the http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html">more detailed rules page:

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office.

Admittedly I'm relatively new here, but it seems to me that the above rules imply, at the very least, that any criticisms of Obama are required to be presented in a very careful and restrained manner. Furthermore, it seems to me that the above rules imply that some kinds of "honest discussion" that might have been appropriate a few months ago, before Obama became the nominee, may no longer be appropriate now.

The issue here has nothing to do with my "personal propaganda." My concern is that this thread could easily be used, by some people, to provoke other people into dissing Obama and thereby getting the latter people kicked off of DU. I've seen various people (mainly official-story defenders) trying to do this sort of thing in other threads.

My point here is not to accuse you personally of anything. I'm just pointing out how this thread could be used by some people.

(Edited to remove a possibly inflammatory remark.)

[dailykoff]

16. Right, and thanks for your concern.

Maybe if you actually participated in political discussions you'd have a better idea of what they are. I've seen no evidence that you are here to "support" any candidate for public office, Democratic or otherwise, or frankly for any other purpose than to prop up the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Do you think I was born yesterday? Seriously.

[Diane_nyc]

17. You must not have read a representative sampling of my posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215886&mesg_id=215970">dailykoff wrote:

I've seen no evidence that you are here to "support" any candidate for public office, Democratic or otherwise

D.U.'s rules don't require us to spend time talking about the candidates. They just forbid using DU to work against Democratic Party candidates. I am generally supportive of most of the political ideas associated with the Democratic Party, although I don't spend a lot of time talking about electoral politics in particular.

or frankly for any other purpose than to prop up the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

You must not have read a representative sampling of my posts. Or do you consider any viewpoint short of no-planes pure-MIHOP to be "propping up the official 9/11 conspiracy theory"?

ETA: For the record, there are plenty of things I suspect may be wrong with the official 9/11 story. Mainly, I think there are good reasons to suspect that various people in the government may have had much more specific foreknowledge than anyone has officially admitted.

And, if I were to come across conclusive evidence that the hijackers were recruited by an agent provocateur, I wouldn't be terribly surprised, although I haven't yet come across such evidence. Until and unless I do come across such evidence, I'm inclined to believe that the truth lies somewhere between criminal negligence and LIHOP.

[dailykoff]

19. Yes, "negligence," "incompetence" and LIHOP are all versions of the official fairy tale

about 19 Allah-praising America haters who brought death and destruction to our beloved towers etc etc.

At this point, one of the best ways to avoid the truth is to make a career of it, and many LIHOPers apparently have. There's a whole squad of thought police patrolling this precint and you all pretty much use the same tasers.

[Diane_nyc]

20. LIHOP is not acknowledged in any official report that I'm aware of ....

... so LIHOP isn't a version of the official story.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215886&mesg_id=216068">dailykoff wrote:

19. Yes, "negligence," "incompetence" and LIHOP are all versions of the official fairy tale

about 19 Allah-praising America haters who brought death and destruction to our beloved towers etc etc

Do you dispute every aspect of the official story? For example, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm">Chapter 1 of the 9/11 Commission Report begins as follows:

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States.

Would you claim that 9/11/2001 was really a cloudy or rainy day, and that only because of massive video fakery do we all believe it was a sunny day?

Next sentence in the 9/11 Commission Report:

Millions of men and women readied themselves for work.

Would you claim that most New Yorkers actually stayed home that morning, and that less than a million of us went to work?

And so on.

I believe in disputing the official story on points where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion.

[Mist]

21. Word. The admin. has eagerly embraced being called "incompetent." Who the

hell embraces being called incompetent?

[Diane_nyc]

22. The 9/11 Commission Report more-or-less implies incompetence, or at least major mistakes ...

... on the part of various people. So, the incompetence theory can indeed be considered a variant of the official story regarding 9/11.

LIHOP is another matter altogether, though.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. I think Congress may add it to their list