CIA sitting on 9/11 Report

[transplant99]

would think that the report exists (it is the CIAs job to provide this) and that it is being supressed for obvious reasons, those being the election and what it could do to the election.

I agree that a report exists...but to then stretch that into it "being suppressed for obvious reasons"...has no leg to stand on.

It may very well be that the report contains information that would usurp national security...not a stretch to believe seeing that the report is about vulnerabilities and what happened prior to 9/11.

Ore it could be very damaging to senior officials and it is being suppressed for that reason.

Thing is, we just dont know...yet. It could be a multitude of things adding up to a post-election release.

[ricosuave]

'senior officials' leading all the way to the president

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 23 2004, 10:05 AM
I think its funny that this "report" caused this thread. I would think that the report exists (it is the CIAs job to provide this) and that it is being supressed for obvious reasons, those being the election and what it could do to the election. I don't think Bush has much to do with that myself. I think if anyone is supressing it it would be the new CIA Director. I just thought it would be interesting to share that the CIA supposedly has a report that points fingers and names names and that it may come available after the election. I would love to read that right now though!

Well, Lanny, it looks like we agree on something. Amazing!

I find it interesting that someon can have the viewpoint of: " Well, I'm assuming the report is something bad if the accusation is that it's being sat on."

Sure, it *can* be bad... and probably *will* be bad.. but who knows who it will be bad for - and I'm sure we can all read into that statement above and know what he means based on who posted that. Way to be unbiased.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 23 2004, 03:52 AM

Again I'll explain something for you DIS. George Bush, I think he's a loser. He was off on lots of holidays. Perhaps my grammar was a bit off, but the crux was "due to all the holidays that loser had". Loser being Bush.
But I thank you for helping me refute Mean Mr. Mustards' claim that Bush inherited the recession. You said it was due to 9/11 he said he got it when he came....can't you guys stop flip flopping between your beliefs?
You're a piece of work too DIS while I'm at it.

first off...FLAME ON.... what the heck does MMM's beliefs have to do with mine and why do I need to make sure mine don't oppose his? That's quite an invention!

Secondly, technically, MMM is right....the economy was on the decline before Clinton left office. Plenty of #'s to show that....irrelevant really, 9/11 finished the job and caused a full-fledged recession.

Thanks for explaining what you meant with the loser holiday stuff.....funny that's the only thing you were able to respond to though, isn't it?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 23 2004, 04:19 AM

Find one single post where I've asked what Bush did 30 years ago. Hell he was probably not even in politics then, why'd I want to know that? Find one.
Oh you'll also notice in my post I said people argue that, not specifically you. So if you didn't say it then I'm not talking about you then am I.

Then why bring it up???? It only aids in confusing the discussion.

[Flame On]

Thanks for explaining what you meant with the loser holiday stuff.....funny that's the only thing you were able to respond to though, isn't it?

1. they still have a role to do, and report their findings to Bush but still have to serve the US people surely. Otherwise by your standard of Bush control, he could order them to announce they've caught Osama and won the war on terror, they'd have to obey their master wouldn't they?
2. Why wouldn't it be leaked, hmmm. Guess you got me what a solid arguement of unkowns you've put forth. I don't know, perhaps it's not finished quite yet, there are thousands of reasons a report might not be leaked. Perhaps their scared for their jobs with their overlord above them.
3.Maybe that's the leak. Maybe we're seeing the leak, knowing the curious people will dig it out, or shout for it to be released. (fits for point 2 too).
DIS you may not agree, but this is where I talked about your other points, just use your scroll bar.

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 23 2004, 04:19 AM

Find one single post where I've asked what Bush did 30 years ago. Hell he was probably not even in politics then, why'd I want to know that?

Then why bring it up???? It only aids in confusing the discussion.

I bring up the 30 year issue because I'm sure you'll have noticed (hell I could probably do a search and find contributions from you) threads where Kerry's past comments to the senate are being held against him by the Sinclair group in their controversial documentary. It was argued by a few who hold more right wing opinions that this was fair and good to judge what sort of person he is/was.
I was saying by the same standards, that we should see a current report. What have they got to lose if they've done such a good job? Why not release it if there is one and score more political points? I wonder why, hmmmm.
You then said that I talked about wanting to see Bush's record from thirty years ago which is another falsehood DISPLACED FLAMES FAN....