9/11 opinion poll for this board

[WildCat]

By clicking on the numeric link on the respective poll option.

Man oh man, been here for years and didn't know that!

It's just like last week, when I found out my dash lights (in a car I've had over 2 years) had a brighter setting.

 

[rocketdodger]

Here is my way of looking at it:

1) The planes flew into our buildings, and we had no idea who did it.

2) Supposedly AQ claimed responsibility, via Bin-Laden (although never in person).

3) We literally crush the taliban.

4) Someone bombs Madrid and London.

5) Most (intelligent) citizens in the west now realize that Islamic extremism is an enemy that we will have to fight and defeat eventually. Thus any chance that Islamic extremism ever had to actually prosper is now dead because most of the western world views it as an enemy and we not only have our guard up but are preparing for the fight.

My conclusion from all this is that IF 9-11 really was carried out by Islamic extremists, it was the stupidest thing they could have done. They basically have no chance at all now.

However, this doesn't mean it probably didn't happen. After all these are the people that think blowing themselves up will serve their cause better than placing bombs and running away so they can do it over and over again.

 

[davefoc]

By clicking on the numeric link on the respective poll option.

Sure, I might have done it like that, but I also might have done a mind meld with Wildcat to figure out who he voted for. Of course, I did miss the whole bob_kark thing, so maybe my mind meld skills could use a little work.

 

[brodski]

Man oh man, been here for years and didn't know that!

It's just like last week, when I found out my dash lights (in a car I've had over 2 years) had a brighter setting.

it only works on some polls, it depends if the author of the OP set the poll results to "public or not", and yeah, I thought that "43" referred to bob as well, but my vote was dis-info.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Here is my way of looking at it:

1) The planes flew into our buildings, and we had no idea who did it.

2) Supposedly AQ claimed responsibility, via Bin-Laden (although never in person).

3) We literally crush the taliban.

4) Someone bombs Madrid and London.

5) Most (intelligent) citizens in the west now realize that Islamic extremism is an enemy that we will have to fight and defeat eventually. Thus any chance that Islamic extremism ever had to actually prosper is now dead because most of the western world views it as an enemy and we not only have our guard up but are preparing for the fight.

My conclusion from all this is that IF 9-11 really was carried out by Islamic extremists, it was the stupidest thing they could have done. They basically have no chance at all now.

However, this doesn't mean it probably didn't happen. After all these are the people that think blowing themselves up will serve their cause better than placing bombs and running away so they can do it over and over again.

Islamic fundamentalists are not renowned for their thinking-things-through skills.

Their so-called "strategy" is very effectively summarized by Lee Harris.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Here is my way of looking at it:

1) The planes flew into our buildings, and we had no idea who did it.

2) Supposedly AQ claimed responsibility, via Bin-Laden (although never in person).

3) We literally crush the taliban.

4) Someone bombs Madrid and London.

5) Most (intelligent) citizens in the west now realize that Islamic extremism is an enemy that we will have to fight and defeat eventually. Thus any chance that Islamic extremism ever had to actually prosper is now dead because most of the western world views it as an enemy and we not only have our guard up but are preparing for the fight.

My conclusion from all this is that IF 9-11 really was carried out by Islamic extremists, it was the stupidest thing they could have done. They basically have no chance at all now.

However, this doesn't mean it probably didn't happen. After all these are the people that think blowing themselves up will serve their cause better than placing bombs and running away so they can do it over and over again.

Islamic extremists aren't trying to build a better world or a happier life for their children. They're trying to please their god and their prophet. According to these people, the thing that pleases them most is martyrdom in their names. And their sense of justice (however twisted it is) is much more powerful than their desire to ease their suffering.

I think they got exactly what they wanted. They lured the infidel army into an all-out war, providing a world-wide front of recruitment and martyrdom opportunities.

 

[Luke T.]

What do you think happened on 11 September 2001?

A bunch of lunatics from the Middle East hijacked some airplanes and flew them into the twin towers and the Penatagon and a field in Pennsylvania. Real loser types.

Next question.

 

[Zoilus]

Putting aside for a moment the fallacy that money spent would be a good measure of the thoroughness of the investigation, I'll need a source for the math involved here.

Is "money spent would be a good measure of the thoroughness of the investgation" an informal fallacy, or just a hasty generalization on your part? And you mean "figure," not "math," right? Let me clarify what is admittedly an ambiguous statement: What I meant was that we [citizens] can measure how much something matters to our beloved government in Washington based on the amount of money those politicians spend on it, don't you agree?

Thus, it seems to me that the over 40 million dollar investigation (Google CNN's website--I can't post links yet) of Bill Clinton's Whitewater Land Deal via his penis/moral fiber/intern's blue dress (not to mention Tony Snow's recruitment of Linda Tripp to the "vast right-wing conspiracy") certainly was more important to certain members of Congress (those in charge of the purse strings, apparently) than their $12 million investigation of 9/11 in general. Is that fair to say?

Also, what exactly was missed by the 9/11 investigation? What should have been studied that was ignored exactly?

Well, I'd like to have had Bush sworn in, and not on Dick's knee during the investigation. I'd like to know why he fought it tooth and nail, then finally gave in and appointed Kissinger to head it up, and why it took a year and a half to even get the investigation going. I still want to know where the videos are from all these cameras that fill every lamp post and building eave? I want to know why no one was reprimanded, or fired, or at least disciplined in some way for the massive failure of defending our country on 11-9. Explain the pet goat to me. Explain Rummy's strange behavior that morning. Explain. . .jeez, there's a lot I'd like explained, but I'd really like to just address these issues one at a time (instead of the usual free for all that passes for discussion on most boards).

Also, I'm not a Looser (as someone referred to me, I think). I'm just skeptical of both sides (the OV and the so-called "Truth Movement") and am looking for the truth on my own terms. I have read Gravy's critique of LC2E and agree with it, pretty much. That doesn't mean I'm quite ready to throw in my lot with the Bushitler just yet.

 

[Cylinder]

Thus, it seems to me that the over 40 million dollar investigation (Google CNN's website--I can't post links yet) of Bill Clinton's Whitewater Land Deal via his penis/moral fiber/intern's blue dress (not to mention Tony Snow's recruitment of Linda Tripp to the "vast right-wing conspiracy") certainly was more important to certain members of Congress (those in charge of the purse strings, apparently) than their $12 million investigation of 9/11 in general. Is that fair to say?

Where are you getting that number from? I bet they spent twice that amount transporting and sorting steel from the WTC site alone.

Explain Rummy's strange behavior that morning.

What bizarre behavior? The fact the he walked to the scene of the attack and assisted? I see room for criticism there, since he should have been focused on information gathering and less focused on the fate of the building he was in and the people that worked around him. Of course, his proximity to those providers did not rule both roles out.

If you want a point-by-point discussion, I'll be happy to participate in one. Just remember that you can't wander all over the map and expect me to focus my replies. Where would you want to begin?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Where are you getting that number from? I bet they spent twice that amount transporting and sorting steel from the WTC site alone.

That was the amount given to the 9/11 Commission to complete their report. But it wasn't by any means the total amount spent on the investigation. All the organizations involved, including the FBI, NIST, and FEMA, still had their own budgets to work with on top of the $12 million. And by the way, the FBI and NIST are still investigating pieces of it.

Contrast that with Monica-gate, where the $40 million was the whole wad--it paid for everything, including Ken Starr. Don't get me wrong, I believe the money was mis-spent and the whole thing was a wasteful distraction. But $12 million was more than enough for what the 9/11 Commission was tasked with. They were basically responsible for compiling and distilling information.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Also, I'm not a Looser (as someone referred to me, I think). I'm just skeptical of both sides (the OV and the so-called "Truth Movement") and am looking for the truth on my own terms. I have read Gravy's critique of LC2E and agree with it, pretty much. That doesn't mean I'm quite ready to throw in my lot with the Bushitler just yet.

Who is suggesting it's one extreme or the other?

 

[BPSCG]

Contrast that with Monica-gate, where the $40 million was the whole wad--it paid for everything, including Ken Starr.

And keep in mind that in the Whitewater investigation, the administration was digging its heels in every step of the way, which naturally drove the cost up.

 

[Ladewig]

Well, I'd like to have had Bush sworn in, and not on Dick's knee during the investigation.

I would too.

I'd like to know why he fought it tooth and nail, then finally gave in and appointed Kissinger to head it up, and why it took a year and a half to even get the investigation going.

Probably because they knew it would make them look bad even if they had done nothing wrong. Probably because they knew that lying under oath is a lot easier to prove in a court of law than misfeasance or malfeasance is.

I want to know why no one was reprimanded, or fired, or at least disciplined in some way for the massive failure of defending our country on 11-9.

[quibble] Some security personnel at Logan airport were fired but [/quibble] no federal personnel were fired.

 

[Zoilus]

Where are you getting that number from? I bet they spent twice that amount transporting and sorting steel from the WTC site alone.

The figures I've seen range from 3m to 15m for the 9/11 investigation. As I said above, I can't post links yet (some 15 post minimum requirement?) but it seems the World Socialist Web Site puts the figure at 12m on 9 April 2003, the blogger "Norbizness" puts it at 14m on 2 March 2004, and, most credibly, the government itself admits the budget as follows:

What is the Commission's budget?

* Public Law 107-306 provided for the reprogramming of $3 million for the Commission. Congress subsequently appropriated, and the President signed into law, an additional $11 million appropriation for the Commission. Recent legislation authorized an additional $1 million, bringing the Commission’s total budget to $15 million.

The Commission is confident that it can fulfill its mandate with this amount. We appreciate very much the support of Congress and the President for this level of funding.

Now, just to put that in perspective, let's compare (thanks to Norbizness for this documented compilation):

One of These Investigations Is Not Like the Other

Mike Espy (Secretary of Agriculture) investigation: 4 years, $19.2 million.

Henry Cisneros (HUD Secretary) investigation: 8 years, $19 million.

Iran-Contra Affair: 6 years, $47.4 million.

Whitewater investigation: 6 years, $52 million.

Investigation into the Challenger explosion: $40 million

Investigation into the Space Shuttle Columbia: appropriated $50 million.

9/11 Commission (assuming it ends on 7/29/04): 20 months, $14 million.

See my point? If money means "priorities," then obviously this is a strange priority list for our elected leaders (of all parties). The worst attack on our soil in history gets the less than the investigation into Mike Espy?

What bizarre behavior? The fact the he walked to the scene of the attack and assisted? I see room for criticism there, since he should have been focused on information gathering and less focused on the fate of the building he was in and the people that worked around him. Of course, his proximity to those providers did not rule both roles out.

Do generals run to the front lines to bandage front line soldiers, or do they direct the battle plan? Yes, Rummy running around allegedly performing triage while our nation was under attack seems to me to be bizarre behavior. Maybe you'd like to define the term "bizarre" and then we could get into a semantic argument about its etymology instead?

Seriously, though, the Kean report reads: "On the morning of September 11, Sec. Rumsfeld was having breakfast at the Pentagon with a group of members of Congress. He then returned to his office for his daily intelligence briefing. The Sec. was informed of the second strike in New York during the briefing; he resumed the briefing while awaiting more information. After the Pentagon was struck, Sec. Rumsfeld went to the parking lot to assist with rescue efforts" (Report 54).

If that doesn't seem like bizarre behavior to you, then I'm sure Bush lingering in the school in Florida for half an hour after the second plane hit the WTC doesn't give you any pause, either. But it does give me pause, and I think it's bizarre, odd, baffling, troublesome. The following info is from cooperative research ("An Interesting Day"):

Chief of Staff Andrew Card was in a nearby room when he heard the news. He waited until there was a pause in the reading drill to walk in and tell Bush. [Washington Times, 10/7/02, Washington Times, 10/8/02] The children were getting their books from under their seats to read a story together when Card came in. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Card whispered to Bush: “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/02] Another account has Card saying: “A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01] Accounts vary as to when Card gave Bush the news. Some say 9:05 [Salon 9/11/01, New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01, Albuquerque Tribune, 9/10/02], and some say 9:07. [Washington Post, 9/11/01, Washington Times, 10/8/02] ABC News reporter Ann Compton, who was in the room, said she was surprised by the interruption and “wrote [the time] down in my reporter’s notebook, by my watch, 9:07 a.m.” [ABC News, 9/11/02]

The Reaction—Or Lack of One

Descriptions vary greatly as to how Bush responded to the news. It is said he “blanched” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10/1/02], “the color drained from the president’s face” [AP, 9/12/01 (D)], he “wore a bemused smile” [Orlando Sentinel, 9/12/01], “because visibly tense and serious” [Time, 9/12/01], and so on. Watch the video and draw your own conclusions (the 11-minute video can be viewed at the Center for Cooperative Research, Buzzflash, Global Free Press, The Emperor’s New Clothes, or Liberty DYNU). Bush later recalled his own reaction: “I am very aware of the cameras. I’m trying to absorb that knowledge. I have nobody to talk to. I’m sitting in the midst of a classroom with little kids, listening to a children’s story and I realize I’m the Commander in Chief and the country has just come under attack.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 11/1/02] Asked again what he thought after he heard the news, Bush said, “We’re at war and somebody has dared attack us and we’re going to do something about it. I realized I was in a unique setting to receive a message that somebody attacked us … t became evident that we were, you know, that the world had changed.” [CBS, 9/11/02]

So what did the Commander in Chief do with the knowledge that the United States was under attack?

He did nothing.

Bush did not say one word. He did not ask Card any questions. He did not give any orders. He did not know who (or which country) was attacking, whether there would be more attacks, what military plans had been taken, what military actions should be taken—indeed, he knew virtually nothing about what was going on outside the room. He just sat there. Bush later recalled: “There was no time for discussion or anything.” [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 83-84] Even stranger, as one newspaper put it, although the nation was under terrorist attack, “for some reason, Secret Service agents [did] not bustle him away.” [Globe and Mail, 9/12/01]

[. . .]

By 9:35, Bush’s motorcade was ready to take him to the Sarasota airport where Air Force One was waiting. [Telegraph, 12/16/01]

If you want a point-by-point discussion, I'll be happy to participate in one. Just remember that you can't wander all over the map and expect me to focus my replies. Where would you want to begin?

Good. I'm glad we're in agreement about the parameters of this debate. Let's start where we already are: 1) the money/priority question and 2) the bizarre behavior of Bush, Rummy and others on 9/11.

 

[Zoilus]

Who is suggesting it's one extreme or the other?

Far enough. I'd think the very nature of my poll would show that I realize there are MANY different camps in this debate. There are the

1. Ones who totally buy every word, jot, and tittle of every report issued by the Kean Commission, FEMA, NIST and all the rest.
2. Ones who quibble with some of the language contained in the reports, or think it was a whitewash to varying degrees (either blaming Cliton, or exculpating 43, or some combination thereof).
3. The LIHoppers (G.W. Bush "Let it Happen"), either through gross incompetence or used Usama bin Laden as a tool to further some goal of the admin.
4. The skeptics who still haven't decided where they stand, but have questions for both broadly-defined "big sides" of this debate (those big sides being the OV/Official Conspiracy Theory camp vs. the Tinfoil Hat/Area 51/CTist camp).
5. The so-called CTists (<insert your favorite clever epithet here>).
6. The uber-CT-everyone-is-a-crypto-Jew-NWO Patriot crowd.

My apologies if I forgot anyone, but that's why I included an "other" option so that you could write in your own vote if you felt the choices were somehow unfair.

 

[Zoilus]

And keep in mind that in the Whitewater investigation, the administration was digging its heels in every step of the way, which naturally drove the cost up.

And obviously Bushco have been so cooperative regarding the investigation of 11-9-01 (witness, for example, Condi's testimony, or their own willingness to go under oath, by themselves, in order to clear their good names).

Heck, I can't even see why it took them more than a buck fifty to get the whole thing done.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I must admit, I thought 43 was bob_kark... didn't yet realize that Zoilus was the latest visitor from the Looser Collective.

And how did you know who I voted for?

ditto. Saw the poll on the front page and assumed it was bob_kark.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Let's start where we already are: 1) the money/priority question and 2) the bizarre behavior of Bush, Rummy and others on 9/11.

1) Apples and oranges. Every investigation leading to a conclusive report does not require the same or same amount of work.

2) Hindsight is 20/20.