Bekijk originele versie : Mariani vs. Bush
Mr. Bush,
This “open letter” is coming from my heart. I want you to know that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and that this is not an attempt to "bash the Government".
You Mr. Bush should be held responsible and liable for any and all acts that were committed to aid in any "cover up" of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. As President you have a duty to protect the American people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to issue a nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack on America. We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news networks.
In the months leading up to the attacks you were repeatedly advised of a possible attack on American soil. During your daily intelligence briefings you were given information that had been uncovered that the very real possibility existed that certain undesirable elements would use commercial aircraft to destroy certain "target" buildings. You never warned the American people of this possible threat. Who were you protecting?
When you took no responsibility towards protecting the general public from the possibility of attack, you were certainly not upholding the oath you spoke when you took office. In that oath you pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully aware of the unfolding events yet you chose to continue on to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and "photo op". While our nation was under attack you did not appear to blink an eye or shed a tear. You continued on as if everything was "business as usual".
In the days following the attacks all air traffic was grounded and Americans, including myself, were stranded wherever they had been when the flight ban was imposed. I was stranded at Midway Airport in Chicago, unable to continue on to California for my daughter's wedding. Imagine my surprise when I later found out that during this "no fly" period a number of people were flown out of the country on a 747 with Arabic lettering on the fuselage. None of these people were interviewed or questioned by any local, State or Federal agencies. Why were they allowed to leave and who exactly was on that flight. We know for a fact that some of the people on the flight were members of (or related to) the royal family of Saudi Arabia and members of the Bin Laden family. Were these people allowed to leave because of the long-standing relationships that your family has with both families?
It is my belief that you intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to gather public support for a "war on terrorism". These wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, have not accomplished what you stated were your goals. Why have you not captured Osama Bin Laden? Where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? All that has happened is a bill that is passed before Congress for 87 billion dollars to rebuild what you ordered blown to bits. As an American who lost a loved one in the "war on terror" I do pray and support our troops who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq by you. These troops have and will continue to die for your lies. As an American I can make this statement as it appears that associates of your family may stand to prosper from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Bush the time has come for you to stop your control over us. Stop blocking the release of certain evidence and documents that were discovered by the 9/11 Investigation Commission if you have nothing to hide proving you did not fail to act and prevent the attacks of 9/11. Your reason for not releasing this material is that it is a matter of "national security". When in fact I believe that it is your personal credibility/security that you are concerned with. You do not want the public to know the full extent of your responsibility and involvement.
After 9/11 the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act were passed. Both of these allow the government to tap your telephone, search your home, and seize whatever they feel they need to do on a whim. They can do this without a judge's review or a warrant. I feel that this is in direct conflict with our rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following questions:
1.
Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored at your request?
2.
Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
3.
Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
4.
Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?
5.
Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the doomed flights?
6.
When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?
7.
Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they taken and who ordered it done?
It has been over two years since hundreds of our lost loved ones "remains" have still yet to be identified and their remains placed in a landfill at Fresh Kill. We want our heroes brought back and given a public and proud resting place where we all can pay our respects and honor them. These innocent people never had a chance as they were taken from us on that sad September Day.
In the court of public opinion Mr. Bush, your lies are being uncovered each day. My husband, all of the other victims and their families and our nation as a whole, has been victimized by your failed leadership prior to and after 9/11!
I will prove this in a court of law!
Ellen M. Mariani wife of 9/11 victim.
http://www.911forthetruth.com/open_letter_to_the_president_of.htm
Go Miss Mariani!!! Kick His Ass
9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003
(CBS) For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.
"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.
"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."
Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.
"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.
To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.
"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.
The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.
"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.
Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.
Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."
Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.
:D ??? :D
De beste manier on een "onderzoek" in de doofpot te steken is: een onderzoekscommissie oprichten om de zaak "uit te klaren"!
:zwaai: Sword
P.S: we zullen nooit te weten komen wat er die bewuste dag is gebeurd maar dat het zaakje stinkt is wel duidelijk ;)
Origineel gepost door sword
De beste manier on een "onderzoek" in de doofpot te steken is: een onderzoekscommissie oprichten om de zaak "uit te klaren"!
:zwaai: Sword
P.S: we zullen nooit te weten komen wat er die bewuste dag is gebeurd maar dat het zaakje stinkt is wel duidelijk ;)
Wie weet ?
Na Watergate, Oliver North enz misschien een BinLadenGate :D
Origineel gepost door grendel
Wie weet ?
Na Watergate, Oliver North enz misschien een BinLadenGate :D
een BinLadenGate...........................moet kunnen :D
:zwaai: Sword
Origineel gepost door sword
een BinLadenGate...........................moet kunnen :D
:zwaai: Sword
Je kunt het natuurlijk ook Conspiracy-gate noemen.
Origineel gepost door goddeloos
In de VS gelooft 20% van de bevolking ook dat de maanlandingen nooit hebben plaatsgevonden. Complot van de NASA c.s. Er zijn boeken volgeschreven met allerlei doorslaggevende argumenten.
Complottheorieën vinden in dat land traditioneel een uiterst vruchtbare voedingsbodem.
Niet zo erg slim allemaal....
We hebben hier over 11 september en de vragen!!
Niet over Nasa!!
11 September en Nasa is een groot verschil Got it??
Wa salammm
In de VS gelooft 20% van de bevolking ook dat de maanlandingen nooit hebben plaatsgevonden. Complot van de NASA c.s. Er zijn boeken volgeschreven met allerlei doorslaggevende argumenten
Op ESA wordt ook openlijk getwijfeld over de echtheid van de eerste maanlanding hoor!
Origineel gepost door goddeloos
In de VS gelooft 20% van de bevolking ook dat de maanlandingen nooit hebben plaatsgevonden. Complot van de NASA c.s. Er zijn boeken volgeschreven met allerlei doorslaggevende argumenten.
Complottheorieën vinden in dat land traditioneel een uiterst vruchtbare voedingsbodem.
Niet zo erg slim allemaal....
Nee, dat weet ik Godless :D
Daarom vind ik dit geciteerde stuk zo BELANGRIJK !!
Het gaat om een echtgenote van een slachtoffer van 11 september.
Jij bent dus zo een eikel die alles gelooft wat elke dropl.ul van de overheid in deze specifieke situatie aan jou zou voorleggen.
Sorry, deze zaak stinkt. Het is niet anders.
Met alle respect.
deze dame heeft RECHT op antwoorden op haar vragen.
;)
Bush's Worst Enemy
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 30 December 2003
When Ambassador Joseph Wilson speaks of the White House, he tries to take the high road. "It's hard to imagine the government being irrational," he told me over the telephone on Monday afternoon, "and revenge is an irrational act." One breath later, however, Wilson showed why the Bush administration has a great deal to be worried about. "If they thought I was going to away after they raped my wife," said Wilson, "they were dead wrong."
Wilson best explains who he is in the New York Times editorial he had published on July 6, 2003 entitled 'What I Didn't Find in Africa.' "For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador," wrote Wilson. "In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council. It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me."
July 6, 2003. That's pretty much when the madness began.
Joseph Wilson had been tasked by the CIA, after a request from Vice President Dick Cheney, to travel to Niger and investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium 'yellowcake' from that African nation to develop a nuclear weapons program. He spent several days there in February of 2002 investigating the matter fully, and returned to state flatly that no evidence of such a transaction existed.
"It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," Wilson wrote in his Times editorial. "Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired."
Before Wilson left Niger, he briefed the American ambassador to that country, availing her of findings that matched her own. He returned to the United States and briefed the CIA on his findings, as well as the State Department. In short, he covered all the bases and returned home to his normal life. Later, it was revealed that the "evidence" used to support the claim that such a transaction had taken place was a pile of crudely forged documents.
In January of 2003, George W. Bush used the debunked Niger uranium claims during his State of the Union address to buttress his argument that war in Iraq was necessary. This begat the "16 words" scandal that burned briefly this summer before disappearing with nary a ripple. Why did the President use grossly inadequate intelligence data in such an important speech? Was it a deliberate attempt to mislead the American public, a deliberate attempt to fill them with the fear of terrorist mushroom clouds from Iraq? Or was it an incredible failure on the part of the National Security apparatus that this flawed and forged data made it into the speech? A 'yes' answer to any of these questions was profoundly unacceptable, which was the motivation for Wilson's editorial on July 6th.
The publication of Wilson's editorial brought about a rare day of discomfort for a White House that is normally insulated by a friendly Congress, a subordinate Justice Department, and a tamed media. "The day after I wrote the article," said Wilson on Monday, "the White House said those 16 words shouldn't have been there. For me, that was the end of the story. Others could decide if the White House had deliberately deceived the American people. I'd gotten my answer, and afterwards refused all interviews on the subject, beyond the ones I'd already committed to."
Agents within the Bush administration, most notably Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld, claimed they had never been informed of the corrupted nature of the Niger evidence. Some days later, CIA Director George Tenet took public responsibility for the fact that those 16 words made it into the State of the Union speech. The CIA, said Tenet, had never told the White House that the Niger evidence was phony.
Amusingly, few people believed what Tenet was trying to sell. First of all, Wilson had informed not only the CIA, but the State Department as well, that the Niger claims were empty. Many people beyond Mr. Tenet had the data, and the standard operating procedure would have such important data climbing a number of administration ladders. Second of all, it was Dick Cheney who asked for the investigation in the first place. Is it reasonable to assume that, after having demanded the investigation, Cheney refused to be briefed on the findings?
A number of intelligence community veterans likewise did not buy what Tenet was trying to sell. I spoke with Andrew Wilkie in those July days when all of this was unfolding. Wilkie is a former senior intelligence analyst for the Office of National Assessments, the senior Australian intelligence agency which provides intelligence assessments to the Australian prime minister. "In the last week in Australia," said Wilkie, "the Defense Intelligence Organization has admitted they had the information on the Niger forgeries and says they didn't tell the Defense Minister. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs has admitted they had the information on the Niger forgeries and didn't tell the Foreign Minister. The place I used to work, the Office of National Assessments, has admitted publicly that they knew the Niger evidence was fake and didn't tell the Prime Minister about it."
"You've got three intelligence organizations in Australia, the intelligence organizations in the US," continued Wilkie, "and every one is saying they knew this was bad information, but not one political leader reckons they were told. All three organizations have said they didn't give this information to their political leaders. It is unbelievable to the point of fantasy."
Ray McGovern, a 27 year veteran and former senior analyst for the CIA, was likewise unconvinced after Tenet made his dubious confession. "Tenet's confession is designed to take the heat off," said McGovern when I spoke to him in July, "to assign some responsibility somewhere. It's not going to work. There's too much deception here. For example, Condoleezza Rice insisted that she only learned on June 8 about Ambassador Wilson's mission to Niger back in February 2002. That means that neither she nor her staff reads the New York Times, because Nick Kristof on May 6 had a very detailed explication of Wilson's mission to Niger. In my view, it is inconceivable. Her remark this week - that she didn't know about Joe Wilson's mission to Niger until she was asked on a talk show on June 8 - is stretching the truth beyond the breaking point."
This situation, for Wilkie and McGovern, was an interesting case study in the incredible malfeasance of the Bush administration. For Joseph Wilson, however, it became much more personal. Before long, it became about his integrity, and about keeping his wife alive.
"After my editorial came out," said Wilson on Monday, "the President went to Africa. Then White House slimeball press secretary, Ari Fleischer, started spreading rumors that maybe my information wasn't that good, maybe he has some ulterior motives. Cap Weinberger, a lifelong friend of Dick Cheney, wrote an article saying I'd had less than a stellar career. Rather than let bygones be bygones and deal with the issue - the issue being that someone had apparently put lies in the President's mouth - they decided to get the messenger who had said, 'Mr. President, someone put a lie in your mouth.'"
The manner in which the White House decided to "get" the messenger cuts straight to the heart of the integrity of this administration. The Bush administration, in order to silence the politically discomforting Joseph Wilson, along with any other analyst insiders who might speak out about the shady way intelligence surrounding the Iraq invasion was handled, attacked Joseph Wilson's wife.
Wilsons' wife is named Valerie Plame, and she has worked for the CIA for years. Plame is not an analyst or a secretary. Plame is what the CIA calls a NOC, which stands for "non-official cover." A NOC designation means that Valerie Plame was working under such deep cover that she could not be associated with the American intelligence community in any way, shape or form. Plame worked out of a CIA front company called Brewster Jennings & Associates while she performed her service to America's defense. Her service? Valerie Plame ran a clandestine global network designed to track any person, group or nation that might try to deliver weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
Not long after Wilson's editorial ran in the Times, individuals within the Bush administration cold-called several journalists and informed them that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. One of these calls went to Robert Novak, who wrote about it in his column. "Wilson never worked for the CIA," wrote Novak on July 14, "but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
This revelation, and the subsequent firestorm that followed, had a number of effects. Most prominently, it annihilated an intelligence network dedicated to keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. It destroyed the viability of Brewster Jennings & Associates as a front company, thus wrecking the work of every other agent who worked from there. It put the lives of Plame's informants within her network in mortal peril; when an agent gets blown, foreign intelligence agencies - especially ones in unfriendly countries - tend to erase the people that agent associated with as a matter of national security. It put Plame's life in peril as well; those same foreign intelligence services would prefer Plame be dead for revealing sensitive data about their activities.
"They couldn't resist letting Novak and those others know my wife worked with CIA," said Wilson on Monday. "Did they know she was a clandestine operator? The number of people in the administration who knew what my wife did for a living is very small. Only those who had means and motive could have done this, someone who has keys to our most precious national security secrets along with a political agenda. It occurred right at that nexus of policy and politics."
Why do this? Agents within the Bush administration destroyed a network dedicated to what is roundly broadcast as this administration's main mission: Keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. According to the rhetoric, this was why we invaded Iraq.
"I operate from the assumption," said Wilson on Monday, "that the reason for doing this was to discourage others who were talking to press - and there were many - from coming forward more openly. The message was 'Be very careful: Do a Wilson on us, and we will do a Plame on you.' Its one thing to be political and put up with this crap. I'm used to it, after having been around for so long. But it's another thing for an analyst to deal with threats like this. Analysts aren't used to dealing with pressures like this. This act may have discouraged many of them from coming forward. I don't know to be sure, but have been far less insider stories about what we were hearing, stories of Cheney pressuring CIA analysts and the like, than there were a few months ago. There are far fewer unattributed sources talking about it. What they did to my wife was a political act to discourage others from coming forward."
For the record, the United States of America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration spent months terrifying the American people with the specter of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. The record is clear:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, August 26 2002
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, September 12 2002
"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." - Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, February 5 2003
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons." - George Bush, February 8 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George Bush, March 17 2003
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." - Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." - Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003.
All of these claims were wrapped around the rhetoric of september 11, making a clear connection for the American people: If we do not invade Iraq and get those weapons, they will be given to terrorists for use against you. This rhetoric is further buttressed by claims on a page on the White House's own website titled 'Disarm Saddam Hussein.' That page outlines, in specifics, why Iraq was a threat. The threat: 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas (500 tons = 1,000,000 lbs.), nearly 30,000 munitions to deliver these poisons, and al Qaeda connections just itching to take possession of it all.
In a bit of black comedy, the Niger uranium claims - so thoroughly debunked that America stands ashamed before the world because Bush used them publicly to augment his case for war - still remain on this official White House page. The tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and botulinum toxin, the million pounds of sarin, VX and mustard gas, have thoroughly failed to turn up after nearly a year's worth of occupation and investigation, after almost 500 American soldiers have died, after thousands more have been horribly wounded, to defend America against a threat that did not exist in the first place.
The White House lied. George W. Bush lied. Dick Cheney lied. Don Rumsfeld lied. Ari Fleischer, perhaps predictably, lied. Joseph Wilson called them on just one of their lies, and that same White House reached out and destroyed his wife's career in order to protect itself politically, and to warn any other whistleblowers that public criticism might well amount to complete personal destruction. In doing so, the White House trashed an intelligence network that was working to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.
As the New Year approaches, all sorts of retrospectives will be broadcast across the spectrum of television networks. Famous people who died will be remembered, and the most interesting news stories of the year will be rehashed. You'll see Saddam Hussein's capture many times, and you will see his statue toppled in Baghdad many times.
You won't hear about Valerie Plame, or her savaged intelligence network that was protecting you. You won't hear about the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You won't hear the names, nor see the faces, of the nearly five hundred American soldiers who have died because of the Bush administration's lies. You won't see the ripped flesh or bloody stumps on the thousands of American soldiers who were torn up because of the Bush administration's lies.
All of that happened, however. All those dead and wounded soldiers happened. Valerie Plame happened. Joseph Wilson happened, and he is not finished yet. Not by a long chalk. What would you do if someone attacked your wife.
...............I would f.u.c.k. him up so f.u.c.k.i.n.g. hard :D
de waarheid krijg je toch nooit..
Origineel gepost door madv
de waarheid krijg je toch nooit..
Dat zal best,
maar ik zal me nooit laten "naaien" door dubbele tongen :D
©2000-2012 Marokko.nl Virtual Community's - La maison du Maroc. Powered by Marokko Media.