....I thought this thread would be apprieciated. It was compiled by a friend of mine, so I'll do my best to defend it in cooperation with him, but his beliefs are pretty much mine as well, so without futher ado...

btw, I can't wait to say "I told you so" h:

Index:

#1 Facts
#2 Interesting things to consider about the 9/11 attacks
#3 Article about Bush's rush to war
#4 Article About CIA directors Comments to Congress
#5 Senate Report 103-900 (Proof U.S supplied Chemical and Bio Weapons to
Iraq)
#6 Link to article on Gulf War Veterans Association website (backs up
claims made in the book reffered to in section #6)
#7 Excerpts from a book about how the white house armed iraq (Fairly long,
very interesting)
#8 CIA director's Letter to Congress
#9 FBI agent's letter to FBI director Robert Mueller (Fairly long, parts
that are very interesting)
#10 General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant comments on
service

---------------------------------#1-------------------------------------

FACTS

- United States military budget exceeds that of the next nine (world) powers
combined

- Bush proposed, a staggering $48 billion increase in the pentagons budget,
an increase larger than the total military budget of any other country.

- Bush now wants another $75 billion for the war in iraq

- Bush admitted that the US economy has entered a recession, but he had no
remedy for the growth of unemployment, poverty and social deprivation, only
proposing an extension of his program of cutting taxes for the wealthy and
big business. He made only passing reference in the State of the Union
speech to social needs such as education and health care, and his budget to
be released next week will funnel nearly all new spending to the military
and homeland security.

- The State of the Union speech came in the shadow of the collapse of Enron,
the seventh largest US company and one which has the closest political ties
to Bush and the Republican Party, as well as a series of other corporate
bankruptcies: Kmart, Global Crossing, Sunbeam, the entire steel industry.
But Bush could propose nothing on the question of jobs and living standards
except more government handouts to the corporations.

- Bush threatened to attack Iran, Iraq and North Korea-mentioning the three
countries by name. Despite his apocalyptic warnings about “thousands of
dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by
outlaw regimes,” these countries had nothing to do with the September 11
terrorist attacks, a fact acknowledged by the US government, the CIA, and
the FBI.

----------------------------------#2------------------------------------
This is just something to consider, none of it is fact, just a bunch of coincidence thrown togeather. Conspiracy theory? Maybe so, but still....

The Rockefeller and Bush families go back a long ways...back to the days of
Hitler. Now, the Rockefeller family has many oil interests IE Exxen Mobil
and many others. The Rockefellers oil policies are Osama Bin Ladens (bin
Laden family also owns oil companies which is how osama got his inheritance)
stated reason for hating the U.S. (The World Trade Center was built by the
Rockefellers) With that said, this next article says: Hussein and Bin Laden
both have reported business ties with the Bush family, the latter also tied
to VP Dick Cheney and Tony Blair through the Carlyle Group with oil and
pipeline interests. (Bin Laden and his Taliban continued to receive millions
of dollars of support under the current administration up to just a few
months before the 9/11 attacks.) Now if you do some research you will find
that there is a link between these people and people/ oranizations not
mentioned (organizations who enact policies in foreign countries and also
started by some of the above mentioned families.) Consider this. The trade
towers were constructed by the Rockefellers, they also BOTH collapsed
perfectly straight down (kinda like a building implosion done by
professional demolition companies) EVEN when one of the towers was hit off
center (a demolition expert watching the collapse on 911 said he could not
understand why the top of the first tower to collapse (the one hit off
center, and the one who's top started to fall off to the side) fell straight
down with the rest of the building instead of A.) falling off the rest of
the tower, or B.) pulling the tower off to the side causing the tower to
fall over to the side instead of fall straight down. The economy before 911
was bad and getting worse and Bush's popularity ratings were streadily
dropping. Bush was in Florida the day of the attacks...and the section of
the pentagon hit was a section with the least amount of people in it (it was
under renovation at the time). Also remember that there was a FBI warning
before 911 about suspected terrorists in US flight schools...a warning which
was ignored. The FBI and CIA have said before 911 they had reason to
believe terrorists were planning attacks on the U.S. Also the World Trade
Center housed documents to several FBI investigation into government
officials and corprate scandals. NOW...are all of these coincedence...the
towers falling perfectly, the president in florida, the pentagon being hit
in the least "destructive" spot, the warnings of terrorism being ignored at
the highest levels? Definately raises questions....now to further your
questions look at this:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm
with that said also consider this intersting fact. Reagan Airport is less
than 1 mile from the pentagon on the EXACT opposite side of the pentagon
that was hit, with runways available to land or take off from coming from
the direction the 757 would have been coming from. So if the plane was
travelleling at a minimum speed of 250mph....it could be within the air
traffic of reagan airport in less than 2 seconds....(its traveling approx
.69 miles/ second) By the time the explosion and sound of the crash was
noticed the 757 would have been able to blend in with the rest of the
airport traffic & or been on the ground at Reagan. If you find this
interstesting look into it...you will find ALLLL kinds of links and theories
behind this....As for the question of why our government would stage
something like that. The terrorist attack that launched hitler was known
that it was going to happen....knowing that hitler put accelarants into the
building to fuel the fire. Used it to get backing for his plans in the name
of "fighting terrorism"
here is the article about bush and cheney giving osama money:
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/war.htm

--------------------------------#3--------------------------------------

Here is an Article about Bush's rush to war called "Bush has little use for
diplomatic niceties"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/4956571

--------------------------------#4--------------------------------------
this is information from another news site...mainly talks about the CIA
directors comments to congress (CIA letter can be found further down the
page). But the article, after all the comments, says:
The bottom-line: Saddam is not likely in the near future to hit the United
States or share his weapons with al Qaeda or other anti-American terrorists,
unless the United States assaults Iraq. This is hardly the picture the
President is sharing with the American public.
Article also says this:
Recently, Representative Jim McDermott, a Seattle Democrat, was lambasted
when he commented, while in Baghdad, that it was conceivable Bush would
"mislead" the public in his pursuit of Saddam. Pundits and Republicans
howled, and some Democrats complained McDermott had tainted their party. Any
campaign consultant could have told McDermott it was politically unwise to
utter such an inflammatory statement while in Iraq, the land of the enemy.
But McDermott's point--that Bush is willing to stretch the truth to obtain
authority to launch a war--has been confirmed. By the CIA.
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgame...?bid=3&pid=119

----------------------------------#5------------------------------------

This is an excerpt from Senate Report 103-900 (S.R. 103-900, February 09,
1994) U.S. EXPORTS OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS TO IRAQ
In the Full Report, you will learn that about 10 to 18 different biologicals
were shipped to Saddam Hussein. These biologicals were MADE IN THE USA in
Texas and Florida.
******
You can read the FULL senate report here, but its REALLY long.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
click "Text Search" under "Congressional Records"
Where it says select congress click "103"
Search For: "U.S. EXPORTS OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS TO IRAQ"
Click: "ARMING IRAQ: THE EXPORT OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS AND THE HEALTH OF
OUR GULF WAR VETERANS (Senate - February 09, 1994)"
Then Click: "[Page S1196]"
******
We found that pathogenic, which means disease-producing items, and
toxigenic, meaning poisonous items, and other hazardous materials were
exported from the United States to Iraq following a licensing and
application procedure actually set forth by our own United States Department
of Commerce.
That meant our own Government had to approve the shipment of these materials
and obviously did so--approving the shipment of these items to Iraq before
the war started.
Now, we further learned by talking to the suppliers that these exported
biological materials were not weakened when they were shipped over there. In
other words, many were full pathogens capable of being reproduced by Iraq
once they got there.
Between the years of 1985 and 1989, the United States Government approved
the sales of quantities of potentially lethal biological agents that could
have been cultured and grown in very large quantities in an Iraqi biological
warfare program.
I find it especially troubling that according to these supply records,
hazardous biological materials were requested by and they were sent to Iraqi
Government agencies, including the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, the Iraqi
Ministry of Higher Education, the State Company for Drug Industries, and the
Ministry of Trade.
While there may be some legitimate need for what are called pathogens in
medical research, obviously much closer scrutiny should be exercised in
approval of exports of materials of this kind to countries known or
suspected of having active and aggressive biological warfare programs. Iraq
has long been suspected of conducting biological warfare research in
addition to its known chemical and biological warfare research programs.

--------------------------------#6--------------------------------------

American Gulf War Veterans Association
U.S. SUPPLIES, CALIBRATES AND ENDORSES
USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN IRAQ
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

--------------------------------#7--------------------------------------
Here are some Excerpts from a book about how the white house armed iraq
this excerpt involves everyone from William Casey (director of the CIA under
the reagan/bush administration. George Bush Sr. , Ronald Reagan, Donald
Rumsfeld, Haig (who i want to say was either secratary of state or secretary
of defense...not possitive, but he was secretary of something) and a guy
named Teicher who was a former CIA operative...not all are mentioned below
due to the fact i had to shorten it, but they were all involved)
(information about the book is at the bottom of the excerpt)

Haig, Teicher, and others in the administration who tended to be concerned
about the underlying threat that Saddam posed to Israel, a strategic
American ally, were shocked when they found out that Iraq had been taken off
the terrorism list. Secretary of State Haig was especially upset at the
fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the
state department was responsible for the list.
....
Casey had gone around everyone's backs in pressing for the change in Iraq's
status, ignoring the information about Saddam that was available to the CIA
and the White House. "We knew very well that Abu Nidal was based in
Baghdad," Teicher recalled. "we knew of Iraq's support for his and other
terrorist organizations. The decision to take Iraq off the terrorist list
was Casey's and Clark's." Clark when asked about the way the decision had
been made, said it "could very well be" that Casey approached him, but he
could not recollect this.
....
The other person Casey confided in, recalled Teicher, was George Bush. "Bush
knew about the covert operations, and Casey felt he could trust him, with
his intelligence orientation and all that." Teicher also remembered Bush
making his position explicit in meetings at the White House: "I attened
meetings where Bush made clear he wanted to help Iraq. His door was always
open to the Iraqis. If they wanted a meeting with Bush, they would get it."
....
U.S military equipment was being sent to Iraq on the order of the White
House, including ammunition, spare parts, defense electronics, and
computers. When Teicher asked what was gonig on, the answers he was given
struck him as very odd indeed. He was told that certain officials at the
White House simply picked up the telephone and "cleared" the deployment of a
plane with a classified cargo. Teicher inquired how this could happen. He
was informed that there were "channels" that the White House used to carry
out such policies. "I asked my colleagues how we were getting the stuff to
Iraq," he remembered, "and I was told that there are people out there who do
it for us." Although it seemed incredible to him that officials at the White
House could be assisting in the clandestine transfer of U.S maerial to Iraq,
Teicher was told not to bother himself about it.
....
"you have to understand something though. These off-the-shelf operations in
the Middle East occurred with great regularity. Yes, they were illegal.
But people think the Irangate affair was something strange. It wasn't. It
was just the one that went public. It was not at all abnormal." -Teicher
....
<ok, this next part is after we knew that iraq had a chemical and biological
weapons program>

In June, 1982, a White House meeting was called to discuss the Iran-Iraq
war. The prevailing view was that if Washington wanted to prevent an
Iranian victory <that would have been bad for our interests if iran OR iraq
won>, it would have to share some of its more sensitive intelligence
photography with Saddam. Some officials resisted the idea of providing a
Soviet clien state with this information, but William Casey ultimately
persuaded the president to make it happen.
A few weeks later, the first U.S satellite photographs were passed to
Baghdad. ... At times, thanks to the White House's secret backing for the
intelligence-sharing, U.S. intelligence officers were actually sent to
Baghdad to help interpret the satellite information. ....the United States
even built an expensive high-tech annex in Baghdad to provide a direct
down-link receiver for the satellite intelligence and better processing of
the information.

<At the same time that was happening this next part was going on (like i
said before if either side won, it would be bad for our interests...we were
playing both sides)>

Casey and his White House allies plotted secret arms sales to Tehran (IRAN),
partly in order to seek the release of American hostages held in Beirut by
Iranian-supported terrorists and partly to counteract the perceived threat
of Soviet influence in Iran. By 1986, the White House was steeped in a
covert ethic. The off-the-books operations involving the diversion of
profits from arms transfers to Iran, in contravention of the law prohibiting
aid to Nicaragua, were eventually exposed and became known to the public as
the Iran-Contra affair. The equally egregious and simultaneous covert aid
in Iraq, however, remained secret.

Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed
Iraq.
Author Alan Friedman
Bantam Books 1993

If you've got the time or the money I suggest either buying it ($6.00 at
half price books) or going to Barnes and Noble for a little reading
session.....at least read the first chapter and look through the pictures
and government documents contained in the middle of the book. Gives you the
sources (government documents ect...) and the pictures are "proof" to some
of the things that took place

 

some more....


----------------------------#8-----------------------------------------

This article from NYTimes.com
You have to get a user name for the NY Times website to view it on their
site, but it is there....here it is if you don't want to sign up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/in...al/09TTEX.html

New York Times
C.I.A. Letter to Senate on Baghdad's Intentions

Following is the text of a letter dated Oct. 7 to Senator Bob Graham,
Florida Democrat and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, by George J.
Tenet, director of central intelligence, about decisions to declassify
material related to the debate about Iraq:

In response to your letter of 4 October 2002, we have made unclassified
material available to further the Senate's forthcoming open debate on a
Joint Resolution concerning Iraq.
As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance between your need for
unfettered debate and our need to protect sources and methods. We have also
been mindful of a shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of
our intelligence capabilities and shortcomings, or with insight into our
expectation of how he will and will not act. The salience of such concerns
is only heightened by the possibility of hostilities between the U.S. and
Iraq.
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified
judgments on Saddam's decision-making regarding the use of weapons of mass
destruction (W.M.D.) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq's Weapons of
Mass Destruction. Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however,
we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested:
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist
attacks with conventional or C.B.W. against the United States.
Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred,
he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist
actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's
unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or C.B.W..
Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists
in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the United States would be his last
chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify the following
dialogue:

Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn't feel threatened, did not feel
threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of
mass destruction?

Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability
of him initiating an attack — let me put a time frame on it — in the
foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I
think would be low.

Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you've . . . indicated he
would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . . But what about
his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he
thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what's the likelihood in response
to our attack that he would use chemical or biological weapons?

Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.

In the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications — "in the foreseeable
future, given the conditions we understand now" — were intended to
underscore that the likelihood of Saddam using W.M.D. for blackmail,
deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds. Moreover, if Saddam
used W.M.D., it would disprove his repeated denials that he has such
weapons.

--------------------------------#9--------------------------------------

This article is also from NYTimes.com
Full text of FBI agent Colleen Rowleys letter to FBI director Robert Mueller
(She was the FBI agent who warned of suspected terrorists in US Flight
schools before 9/11)
You have to get a user name for the NY Times website to view it on their
site, but it is there....here it is if you don't want to sign up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/05/po...9a6e8f9888d09d

Following is the full text from a Feb. 26 letter to Director Robert S.
Mueller III of the F.B.I. from Special Agent Coleen Rowley of the bureau's
field office in Minneapolis.
Minneapolis, MN 55401
February 26, 2003
FBI Director Robert Mueller
FBI Headquarters
Washington
D.C.

Dear Director Mueller:
In June, 2002, on the eve of my testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee,
you told me that you appreciate constructive criticism and that FBI agents
should feel free to voice serious concerns they may have about senior-level
FBI actions. Since then I have availed myself twice of your stated openness.
At this critical point in our country's history I have decided to try once
again, on an issue of even more consequence for the internal security
posture of our country. That posture has been weakened by the diversion of
attention from al-Qaeda to our government's plan to invade Iraq, a step that
will, in all likelihood, bring an exponential increase in the terrorist
threat to the U.S., both at home and abroad.

In your recent testimony to the Senate, you noted that "the al-Qaeda network
will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious threat
facing this country," adding that "the prevention of another terrorist
attack remains the FBI's top priority." You then noted that a "U.S.-Iraq war
could prompt Baghdad to more directly engage al-Qaeda and perhaps provide it
with weapons of mass destruction." But you did not connect these very
important dots. Your recent briefings of field management staff have thrown
light on the immense pressures you face as you try to keep the FBI intact
and functioning amid persistent calls for drastic restructuring. You have
made it clear that the FBI is perilously close to being divided up and is
depending almost solely upon the good graces of Attorney General Ashcroft
and President Bush for its continued existence. Clearly, this tense
environment poses a special challenge to those like you who are responsible
for providing unbiased, objective intelligence and national security advice
to the country's leaders. But I would implore you to step out of this
pressure-cooker for a few minutes and consider the following: 1) The FBI is
apparently the source for the public statement that there are 5,000 al-Qaeda
terrorists already in the U.S. I would ask you to inquire as to whether this
figure is based on any hard data. If it is, rather, an estimate based
largely on speculation, this can only feed the suspicion, inside the
organization and out, that it is largely the product of a desire to gain
favor with the administration, to gain support for FBI initiatives and
possibly even to gain support for the administration's initiatives. 2) What
is the FBI's evidence with respect to a connection between al-Qaeda and
Iraq? Polls show that Americans are completely confused about who was
responsible for the suicidal attacks on 9-11 with many blaming Iraq. And it
is clear that this impression has been fostered by many in the
Administration. As far as the FBI is concerned, is the evidence of such a
link "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claims, or "scant," as
General Brent Scowcroft, Chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory
Board has said? The answer to this is of key importance in determining
whether war against Iraq makes any sense from the FBI's internal security
point of view. If the FBI does have independent data verifying such a
connection, it would seem such information should be shared, at least
internally within the FBI. 3) If, as you have said, "the prevention of
another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top priority," why is it that we
have not attempted to interview Zacarias Moussaoui, the only suspect in U.S.
custody charged with having a direct hand in the horror of 9-11? Although
al-Qaeda has taken pains to compartmentalize its operations to avoid
compromise by any one operative, information obtained from some al-Qaeda
operatives has nonetheless proved invaluable. Moussaoui almost certainly
would know of other al-Qaeda contacts, possibly in the U.S., and would also
be able to alert us to the motive behind his and Mohammed Atta's interest in
crop dusting. Similarly, there is the question as to why little or no
apparent effort has been made to interview convicted terrorist Richard Reid,
who obviously depended upon other al-Qaeda operatives in fashioning his shoe
explosive. Nor have possible links between Moussaoui and Reid been fully
investigated. It therefore appears that the government may have sacrificed
the possibility of acquiring information pertinent to future attacks, in
order to conduct criminal prosecution of these two individuals. Although
prosecution serves worthy purposes, including deterrence, standard practice
in "Organized Crime/Terrorism 101" dictates imaginative, concerted attempts
to make inroads into well-organized, cohesive groups. And sometimes that
requires "dealing with the devil." In short, it is a matter of priorities.
And lack of follow-through with regard to Moussaoui and Reid gives a hollow
ring to our "top priority;" i. e., preventing another terrorist attack. 4)
It is not clear that you have been adequately apprized of the potential
damage to our liaison relationships with European intelligence agencies that
is likely to flow from the growing tension over Iraq between senior U.S.
officials and their counterparts in key West European countries. There are
far more al-Qaeda operatives in Europe than in the U.S., and European
intelligence services, including the French, are on the frontlines in
investigating and pursuing them. Indeed, the Europeans have successfully
uncovered and dismantled a number of active cells in their countries. In the
past, FBI liaison agents stationed in Europe benefitted from the expertise
and cooperation of European law enforcement and intelligence officers.
Information was shared freely, and was of substantial help to us in our
investigations in the U.S. You will recall that prior to 9-11, it was the
French who passed us word of Moussaoui's link to terrorism. 5) I know the
FBI is no longer (or will shortly be no longer) in charge of regulating the
color codes, but I expect we will still have input. I realize that decisions
to change color codes are made at the most senior level, but perhaps you can
caution senior officials about the downside to alarming the public unless
there is adequate reason to do so. Increased vigilance must be encouraged
when needed, but the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces can easily get bogged
down in attempting to pursue all the leads engendered by panicky citizens.
This, in turn, draws resources away from more important, well predicated and
already established investigations. Unintended consequences like the recent
stampede in the Chicago dance club (which initial news accounts reported to
be the case) can also occur when the public is put on these heightened
alerts. The terrorists win in such circumstances even without attacking. 6)
The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the wake of
9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists. They were mostly illegal aliens. We
have every right, of course, to deport those identified as illegal aliens
during the course of any investigation. But after 9-11, Headquarters
encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR
purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of
detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in
fighting terrorism. The balance between individuals' civil liberties and the
need for effective investigation is hard to maintain even during so-called
normal times, let alone times of increased terrorist threat or war. It is,
admittedly, a difficult balancing act. But from what I have observed,
particular vigilance may be required to head off undue pressure (including
subtle encouragement) to detain or "round up" suspectsparticularly those of
Arabic origin. 7) As I believe you know, I have a reputation for being quite
"conservative" on legal and policy issues regarding law enforcement. I have
complained loudly on occasions when some of our laws and procedures
have-unnecessarily, in my view, hindered our ability to move boldly against
crime. At the same time, I know from experience that the FBI's policy on
permissible use of deadly force has served the FBI and the country well. It
should be noted, however, that the Administration's new policy of
"preemptive strikes" abroad is not consistent with the Department of
Justice's (DOJ's) "deadly force policy" for law enforcement officers. DOJ
policy restricts federal agents to using deadly force only when presented
with an imminent threat of death or serious injury (essentially in
self-defense or defense of an innocent third party). I believe it would be
prudent to be on guard against the possibility that the looser "preemptive
strike" rationale being applied to situations abroad could migrate back
home, fostering a more permissive attitude towards shootings by law
enforcement officers in this country. 8) I believe the FBI, by drawing on
the perspective gained from its recent history, can make a unique
contribution to the discussion on Iraq. The misadventure in Waco took place
well before your time as Director, but you will probably recall that David
Koresh exerted the same kind of oppressive control over members of his
Branch Davidian followers, as Saddam Hussein does over the Iraqis. The
parallel does not stop there. Law enforcement authorities were certain
Koresh had accumulated a formidable arsenal of weapons and ammunition at his
compound and may have been planning on using them someday. The FBI also had
evidence that he was sexually abusing young girls in the cult. After the
first law enforcement assault failed, after losing the element of surprise,
the Branch Davidian compound was contained and steadily increasing pressure
was applied for weeks. But then the FBI decided it could wait no longer and
mounted the second assaultwith disastrous consequences. The children we
sought to liberate all died when Koresh and his followers set fires leading
to their mass death and destruction. The FBI, of course, cannot be blamed
for what Koresh set in motion. Nevertheless, we learned some lessons from
this unfortunate episode and quickly explored better ways to deal with such
challenges. As a direct result of that exploration, many subsequent
criminal/terrorist "standoffs" in which the FBI has been involved have been
resolved peacefully and effectively. I would suggest that present
circumstances vis-a-vis Iraq are very analagous, and that you consider
sharing with senior administration officials the important lessons learned
by the FBI at Waco. You are only too well aware that fighting the war on
terrorism and crime is an unbelievably difficult mission that will only
become more difficult in the years to come, adversely affecting future
generations of Americans. The extraneous pressures currently being brought
to bear by politicians of both parties upon the FBI and other U.S.
intelligence agencies, however, only worsen the present situation. I know
that my comments appear so presumptuous for a person of my rank in the
organization and I'm very sorry for that impression. A word of explanation
is therefore probably in order as to why I feel moved to write you directly
about these issues. A good part of the reason lies in a promise I made to
myself after I realized the enormity of what resulted when FBI Headquarters
Supervisory personnel dismissed the warnings of Minneapolis agents
pre-September 11, 2001. I was well aware of the forceful but frustrated
efforts being made by Minneapolis case agents and their supervisor in their
efforts to get Headquarters to move. But since my own role was peripheral, I
did not think I could be of much additional help. Since that fateful day of
September 11, 2001, however, I have not ceased to regret that perhaps I did
not do all that I might have done. I promised myself that in the future I
would always try. I appreciate that you alone do not determine policy on the
terrorist threat from inside or outside the countrythat, indeed, you may
have little influence in the crafting of broad domestic or foreign policy.
And it seems clear to me now that the decision to attack Iraq was taken some
time ago and you, even as FBI Director, may be little more than a helpless
bystander. Such an attack, though, may have grave consequences for your
ability to discharge your responsibility to protect Americans, and it is
altogether likely that you will find yourself a helpless bystander to a rash
of 9-11s. The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither ourselves
nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various
improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of
terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq.
What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you have made that
clear to the president. If you believe my concerns have merit, I would ask
you to share them with the president and attorney general. We no doubt can
agree that our Government has a gargantuan task facing it of melding
American foreign policy to make the world, and primarily United States soil,
a safer place. I pray for our American and allied world leaders' success in
achieving this most important objective. Thank you so much for allowing me
to express these thoughts. They are personal in nature and should not be
construed as representing the view of any FBI unit or other agents. Yours
truly, Coleen Rowley Special Agent, Minneapolis

 

and the last of it. Sorry it's so much....

------------------------------#10---------------------------------

"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind
to. It has its 'finger men" (to point out enemies), its "muscle men" (to
destroy enemies), its "brain guys" (to plan war preparations), and a "Big
Boss" (supernationalistic capitalism).

"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison.
Truthfulness compels me to do so. I spent 33 years and four months in active
military service as a memeber of our country's most agile military force --
the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant
to Major General. And during that period I spent more of my time being a
high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers.
In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for captialism.

"I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it.
Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought
until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended
animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with
everyone in the military service. Thus I helped make Mexico and especially
Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and
Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the
benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12.
I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in
1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way
unmolested.

"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell
racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotion. Looking back on
it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do
was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three
continents."
-- General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant,1935

 

What a piece of shi* this is. I stopped reading at #2 which appears to be one BIG conspiracy theory. I don't know what your point about how the towers fell is, and there were far too many witness accounts about watching a jet go into the Pentagon on 09/11. You lost credibility at that point. No sense in going further.

David Liske

 

Way to full of BS opinion. Also, its 'facts' are full of 1/2 truths, and selective information.

 

Exactly!

 

Exactly again!

I have nothing to say on this...it is so full of BS and 1/2 truths, and conspiracy theories it is sick people actually believe this crap.

#2 ruins all credebility for the rest of the post. Conspiracy theorists will think of anything.

 

that certainly makes for interesting reading, when do Tinkerbelle and Peter Pan step in?

 

they're busy :boink:

 

Believe what you want..... And I know #2 was a bunch of what-ifs, but hey, I'm not making you listen.

------------
Message:

check this out....the BBC (British Broadcasting Company....the british
equivalent of the USAs ABC reported that the us government told other
countries it planned attacks on osama and the taliban before 911 even
happened
------------

*US 'planned attack on Taleban'*
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/h...ia/1550366.stm>

and.....

Message:
Here is something saying 5 of the 9/11 hijackers were actually trained in military tactics at secured U. S. Military Bases

** Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases **
Exclusive: The Pentagon has turned over military records on five men to the FBI

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/exports...ews/629529.asp