[Jane of Arc]

What does a country do after it's been attacked by terrorists?

It's 9-11-2001. Terrorists have attacked the United States. They hijacked jumbo passenger planes using boxcutters and flew them into the Twin Towers in NYC and the Pentagon in Washington. Another plane didn't reach it's destination and crashed into unidentifiable pieces. Our normal air defense is not working. Sadly, they were doing Able Danger exercises with simulations of fake commercial airliner hijackings. They got confused. The hijackers got lucky. And we've immediately learned, right there on our TV's, who our enemy is and who the hijackers are! We see their faces. We see the face of Osama Bin Laden. We see the Twin Towers collapse over and over and over again for days. We see the face of Osama Bin Laden over and over over again for days. We learn that the hijackers were trained in the US and their instructors said couldn't fly. But, it was their lucky day. And not so lucky for the United States.

WE WERE ATTACKED!!! Now what? What does a country do after it's been attacked by terrorists? We weren't attacked by another country, so who do we go after and how? What have other nations done in similar circumstances successfully?



1. The first thing a country does is a thorough criminal investigation into the terrorists and the crime scenes. We have to be certain we know exactly who our enemies are.

Somehow, suddenly and magically, our government knew immediately after the attacks who the 'evil-doers' were. The American people saw the new enemy on theirs TV's! We don't need an investigation or a trial. There's Osama Bin Laden right on our TV's! It's a done deal. Bad man. Evil-Doer! He was compared to Hitler. Where is he now? Has he been captured? Is the "president" still concerned? Nope. Why not? Why not? Why not?

All the evidence from the Twin Towers was immediately scrapped. It was taken in trucks equipped with GPS (Global Positioning Systems) to Staten Island and shipped to China to be melted down. Never investigated. Why were the GPS devices so necessary on trucks carrying pieces of metal that were to be destroyed? Why wasn't evidence kept in tact? Isn't that a crime in itself? Isn't destruction of evidence from a crime scene a criminal act?


2. The next thing a country with the power of the US does is enlist the help and co-operation of the world community, which is on our side after the attack. We use the good will for intelligence to help us locate the terrorist. We arrest them and try all the people responsible and all the people who conspired or contributed to the attacks in a court of law. Possibly an international court.

But our government never charges anyone with a crime. Our government doesn't take anyone to court. Our government let's all the suspects go. Our government stops looking for the "evil man" who attacks America and kills thousands of our citizens.

Instead, we go to war!

We go to war first on Afghanistan, briefly, then a full-tilt boogie war on a country that even the "president" finally admitted had NO TIES to the 9-11 attacks. WTF?


3. The next thing a country does is maintain good relationships with it's allies and the world community at large to ensure continued co-operation against terrorism. This increases our security in the world and at home.

Our government flips the whole world the bird, pre-emptively attacks an unarmed nation that was no threat to us and bombs it back to the Stone Age. The world community not only doesn't trust us, but now loathes us. We are much less safe from terrorism.


4. The next thing a country does is protect itself. It secures airlines, ports and roadways. It secures ALL borders. It secures nuclear power plants. It secures the water supplies. It secures pipelines, gaslines and electrical infrastructures. A country protects itself in every way possible.

We did not. Our government's solution was to come up with a color-coded Alert System and it increased airport security. That's it. We used American taxpayer's money to invade Iraq, rather than to rebuild America's infrastructure and security.


To all the people who believe we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11 I ask you this: Why didn't our nation behave like other nations who have undergone terrorist attacks? When the UK dealt with the IRA did they make arrests or did they engage the military and bomb Iraq? When Spain was attacked by terrorists did they investigate the crime for weeks and months or did they bomb Iraq?

[Jane of Arc]

It's time. When there's an elephant standing in the middle of the room and people are pretending it's not there ... somebody has to say, "There's a friggin' elephant in the room!"

9/11 was an inside job.

9/11 was an inside job done by the NeoCons and other world players to usurp global domination. There was a window of opportunity available with the decline of the Soviet Union and before the rise of China. They knew they had to act if they were to secure the United States Incorporated as the ruler/ controller/ police of the globe.


They have pretty much pulled it off except it got messy and complicated.

They will change their spots and adapt though. They will pose as "liberals". They will financially back "liberals". They will ride out the liberal swing, controlling it as much as possible, until the next 'window of opportunity' is created and the "liberals" will be seen as the phony fools they presently are. The party of the people, the Democrats, has turned into a corporate-backed, two-faced front for corporations. Some threat will bring America running back into the arms of the militaristically backed NeoCons. Somebody will have to be bombed. Terrorists are easy to manufacture. But that may not be necessary because real terrorists to militaristic states are growing stronger by the day.

But, as the world shrinks and the prospect of a world government gets easier to imagine, too bad democracy didn't make it. Too bad the elite are winning the game and not the citizens of the world. I've never been a pessimist and I shouldn't start now. We should never rule out the good things and deeds all people are capable of. True democracy isn't dead yet.

[NeoCon Newbie]

No It Wasnt
Liberals and there stupid conspirices you have no proof to back it up other then what u think happend

[Mr. Anderson]

Yess...it wuz!!! So there. I was also going to say learn how to spell...but then I realized that's the LEAST of your problems.

Have a nice day!:)

[Wafflepudding]

Maybe!!! But I doubt it!

[Mr. Anderson]

Don't be a doubting Pudding!!:(

[Jane of Arc]

There's a motive for an inside job. There is documentation of NeoCon motives. The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says:

(1) “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

(2) “Even should Saddam pass from the scene, the U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”

(3) "A core mission for the transformed U.S. military is to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.”

(4) "The strategic transformation of the U.S. military into a force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.”

(5) “The process of transformation, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Did they get their desired "New Pearl Harbor"? Yes, they did. Time to smell the coffee and wake the hell up. In 2000 the NeoCons wanted to take Iraq. Once they seized the presidency, wouldn't they need their coveted "Pearl Habor" to advance their designs on the Middle East? Didn't 9/11 give them their opportunity? Isn't that exactly what they wanted? You bet it is.

[Wafflepudding]

I never said there was no motive, I'm saying motive and opportunity alone are enough to be suspicious but not to be certain.

Don't be a doubting Pudding!!:(

If I wasn't skeptical about almost everything, I wouldn't be here in the first place, I'd be out there with the teeming masses voting republican (or democrat, doesn't make much of a difference really) and not discussing anything, confident that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

[Jane of Arc]

WaffleEars says:

"I happen to think it's very unlikely that the government hijacked planes, planted explosives on the towers and somehow managed to pull an airtight conspiracy, concrete-evidence wise, yet has frequently dropped the ball on other issues."

Robin Hordon – Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center. Former Certified Commercial Pilot. Former Certified Flight Instructor and Certified Ground Instructor says:

"I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen."

[Jumpin Jupiter]

Although I have my own assumptions about this subject, I have to wonder if Bush would have done the exact opposite and done nothing, how history and the public would have viewed him?

How the public would have said he had no backbone to defend this country. How he didnt have the patriotism in his blood to go after those that attacked this country.

Second look, if Bush would have let the nuke inspectors keep going in and out of Iraq and not ever done anything about it, and the US somehow then got Nuked/chemical attack by them, look at how many people would be up in arms about how Bush didnt do anything to protect us from them. Think about it!

Damned if you do , damned if you dont.

[Wafflepudding]

JJ: That hypothetical situation would make a lot more sense if:

1.- He didn't try to pitch the American public a second war with Iraq since before 9/11 happened.

2.- He hadn't used unreliable evidence to go after Iraq. If there WERE WMD it would have been possible to prove it with reliable evidence and intelligence, not a bunch of reports that ended up being useful only as toilet paper.

3.- We hadn't discovered the yellowcake forgery.

4.- The whole patriotism jingoistic crap wasn't promoted by the same people that support Bush, and they couldn't just stop spewing the rethoric to support him.]

5.- Everybody or most of his advisors in key positions would have recommended him going to war with Iraq, instead of a chorus of people saying it was a stupid idea.

History would have been kinder to him for not being rash and sitting on his ass than from invading a country based on assumptions, faulty evidence, lies and speculation.

[Jumpin Jupiter]

JJ
2.- He hadn't used unreliable evidence to go after Iraq. If there WERE WMD it would have been possible to prove it with reliable evidence and intelligence, not a bunch of reports that ended up being useful only as toilet paper
.[/B]


Now, i dont know about you, but this statement bothers me. If your intel community tells you something, are you not to believe it?

I dont know if he had in his mind premeditation or not to go to Iraq. Now, if his intel were true, and did nothing, you all would be whining now about another tradegdy that happened here in the US.

We now have the fortunate information of most of what has happened, as hind sight is 20/20. I just ask you to look outside the box, put yourself in his shoes at that time (assuming, and I dont like to assume,:) , it wasnt premeditated) and see what you would do.

Personally I dont like Bush. He hasnt proved himself as a good president.

There are many things that I still question about the Iraq situation. The future will tell what his real plans are, if there are/were any.

[Jane of Arc]

03/26/07

PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
www.pilotsfor911truth.org (www.pilotsfor911truth.org)

Contact: Robert Balsamo
e-mail: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org

OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77", consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR).

The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:


The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.


All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.


The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.


The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.


In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001. However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45. Also according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall.

The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of AA Flight 77 and the official story alleging its crash into the Pentagon.

As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Why have they falsely represented their own data to the American people? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information please visit pilotsfor911truth.org.

[Wafflepudding]

Now, i dont know about you, but this statement bothers me. If your intel community tells you something, are you not to believe it?

I dont know if he had in his mind premeditation or not to go to Iraq. Now, if his intel were true, and did nothing, you all would be whining now about another tradegdy that happened here in the US.

We now have the fortunate information of most of what has happened, as hind sight is 20/20. I just ask you to look outside the box, put yourself in his shoes at that time (assuming, and I dont like to assume,:) , it wasnt premeditated) and see what you would do.


What I would have done is support the war for what I thought it was at the time, not on blatant and obvious misdirections like trying to link Al-Qaeda with Iraq, in spite of Al-Qaeda's loathing for the secular Ba'ath regime (Allahu Akbar was added as the Iraqi motto only recently, for propaganda purposes, much like our "In god we trust").

There was no conscensus, within the American intelligence community, about the reliability of the yellowcake documents from Niger (the so-called "Yellowcake forgery"), Bush chose to disregard any doubts and assume they were true, he ignored his own intelligence community, thus making your point moot since he did just that.

You don't know or you don't want to know?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

They've been pushing the whole damn thing on the American public since 1997 and you "dont know if he had in his mind premeditation or not to go to Iraq"? Am I the only one remembering him being agressive on Iraq since he came into office? Would you not call that premeditation?

If you're seeing this Jane, i'm in the chatroom. Now you see why the PM system would be nice? :p

[Jane of Arc]

PNAC is the place to start to understand the mindset of these "new conservatives", NeoCons. (There's nothing conservative about them.) They're globalists who want control of the world. Roman 'thug' style.

If you study PNAC, and I have, it becomes Krystol clear (pun intended) why 9/11 was a finely orchestrated inside job with the help of Middle Eastern globalists, like the Saudis. 13 of the hijacker's passports with issued by the Saudis. This is what these guys do. They manipulate world events. After seizing the White House in 2000 ... and make no mistake it was seized, the NeoCons got their moment to set about their plan for Pax Americana and the US Empire whose strategic aim is to be the military guarantor of the capitalist market system. They manipulate other countries and governments economically through the World Bank and the IMF and they have the clout because they're backed up by the enormous might of US military machine.

So why are you, JJ and WaffleFoot, still belaboring the Iraq War. Come on already!!! WMD's... inspections ... blah, blah, blah. It's been part of the PNAC plan for decades. Their global plan finally got implemented. It's a done deal with Iraq. They're trying to figure out Iran now. We have the permanent military bases PNAC wanted and more on the way. The US is going to control that strategic area for a very long itme. And the increase in military spending PNAC suggested is exactly what the Bush Administration got from its lapdog Democratic Congress.

[Wafflepudding]

I'm quite convinced it was declared and carried out for a hidden agenda, what I'm trying to expose here is that, even within traditional conservative logic, that's pretty obvious.

Considering we're talking about the future of the middle east, and if you take into account oil reserves, a future economic recession, I would hardly call it "belaboring".

[JamesP]

How the public would have said he had no backbone to defend this country. How he didnt have the patriotism in his blood to go after those that "attacked this country".

(....but Iraq did not "attack this country". Why have you written something that is clearly not true?)

Second look, if Bush would have let the nuke inspectors keep going in and out of Iraq and not ever done anything about it, and the US somehow then got Nuked/chemical attack by them, look at how many people would be up in arms about how Bush didnt do anything to protect us from them. Think about it!

(....but Iraq did not have any nukes or chemical weapons. Again, why have you written something that is clearly not true?)

Damned if you do , damned if you dont.

No, damned if you do, are DEAD WRONG and tens of thousands are dead because of it.

If, on the other hand, you do and you are RIGHT, there's no "damning" involved. Instead, Americans & the world recognize your wisdom and celebrate your success.

Those that insist on "defending the indefensible" consistently make the same inane arguments and dwell in a fantasy alternate reality.

Accountability and responsibility are alien concepts for the Bush administration and their dwindling supporters.

[FDRfollower]

To add to Jane D'arcs warning of PNAC, is this bunch of rouges:

Neo-Con Secret Session on "Iran Confrontation" Follows Cheney's Mideast Trip; Iraq War Genius Bernard Lewis To Speak
May 23, 2007 (LPAC)--Journalist Jim Lobe has exposed (in LobeLog) a meeting underway now in the Bahamas, by leading neo-Cons, to plot a new "confrontation" strategy on Iran. The meeting is to include Gulf and Middle East specialists, at Westin's luxurious Our Lucaya Resort on Grand Bahama Island. The meeting takes place May 30 to June 1, Lobe writes. It is organized by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neo-con outfit set up two days after 9/11. The "policy workshop" over the Memorial Day weekend, is to discuss U.S. strategy for confrontation with Iran.

Lobe's report quotes from the invitation letter sent out by FDD president Clifford May, which says the the workshop, entitled "Confronting The Iranian Threat: The Way Forward," will gather "30 or so leading experts who will analyze the implications of Iran's activities, the diplomatic challenges, military and intelligence capabilities, the spread of its ideology within and beyond its borders, and other issues, including the prospects for democratization in the Islamic world, energy security and other related issues that face policymakers in the United States, Europe and the Middle East."

Among the experts invited are "Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky; the hard-line Iran country director in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Office of Special Plans (OSP) alumna, Ladan Archin; the recently-departed State Department Coordinator of Counterterrorism, Amb. Henry Crumpton; the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Treasury Department, Matthew Levitt, who is now with the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). The administration's new UN Ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, has also been invited, although his duties as next month's Security Council president may make it difficult for him to travel. In any case, his spouse, Cheryl Benard, who directs the RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy, is confirmed," Lobe reports. "Uri Lubrani, the chief Iran advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is also expected to participate."

Furthermore, the inventor of the "clash of civilizations" doctrine, British Foreign Office veteran and "crusader" Bernard Lewis, will open the meeting with a speech on Iran's regional ambitions. "Rob Sobhani ... who helped found, along with Michael Ledeen and several other AEI fellows, the Coalition for Democracy in Iran in 2002, has also been invited, as has one of Lewis' most devoted protégés, AEI fellow and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative, Reuel Marc Gerecht," according to Lobe.

Finally, invitees include anti-proliferation expert Henry Sokolski, vice president of the neo-Conservative American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) and author of the rather sensationalist Tehran Rising. Journalists from the Wall Street Journal, like Bret Stephens, and Matt Kaminski, as well as London Times editor Gerard Baker, have also been invited, as well as Amir Taheri.

And his site of course LINK (http://www.lobelog.com/)

"Krystol clear" he he 8)

[Mr. Anderson]

Pudding-

It is suprising to me that someone who can write this...

Wafflepudding wrote : I'm quite convinced it was declared and carried out for a hidden agenda, what I'm trying to expose here is that, even within traditional conservative logic, that's pretty obvious.


...still has such a difficult time believing the likelihood of elements of our government (and other world players) planning and executing 9/11 to make that "hidden agenda" your trying to "expose" have a VERY robust start. Isn't it just too simple and TOO coincidental that 9/11 just happen to come along just when the neo-cons needed it to? Isn't it?

I know it still doesn't PROVE it, but doesn't it make sense? Isn't it the only way this massive cover up TRULY makes any sense?

[MAGI]

Now, i dont know about you, but this statement bothers me. If your intel community tells you something, are you not to believe it?

I dont know if he had in his mind premeditation or not to go to Iraq. Now, if his intel were true, and did nothing, you all would be whining now about another tradegdy that happened here in the US.

We now have the fortunate information of most of what has happened, as hind sight is 20/20. I just ask you to look outside the box, put yourself in his shoes at that time (assuming, and I dont like to assume,:) , it wasnt premeditated) and see what you would do.

Personally I dont like Bush. He hasnt proved himself as a good president.

There are many things that I still question about the Iraq situation. The future will tell what his real plans are, if there are/were any.

Here's some ignored intelligence known prior to bushcos pre emptive invasion:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052501380.html?hpid=topnews

Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed
Senate Panel Releases Assessments From 2003

By Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 26, 2007; Page A01

Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world.

The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be "a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge." The assessments noted that Iraqi political culture was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" to support democratic development.

More than four years after the March 2003 invasion, with Iraq still mired in violence and 150,000 U.S. troops there under continued attack from al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents, the intelligence warnings seem prophetic. Other predictions, however, were less than accurate. Intelligence analysts assessed that any postwar increase in terrorism would slowly subside in three to five years, and that Iraq's vast oil reserves would quickly facilitate economic reconstruction.

The report is the latest release in the Senate committee's ongoing study of prewar intelligence. A July 2004 report identified intelligence-gathering and analysis failures related to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Still pending is a study of how the administration used intelligence on Iraq in the run-up to the war.

The report was released the same day President Bush signed a $120 billion war funding bill from Congress that includes benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

In a statement attached to yesterday's 229-page report, the Senate intelligence committee's chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), and three other Democratic panel members said: "The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al Qaeda terrorists."

In addition to portraying a terrorist nexus between Iraq and al-Qaeda that did not exist, the Democrats said, the Bush administration "also kept from the American people . . . the sobering intelligence assessments it received at the time" -- that an Iraq war could allow al-Qaeda "to establish the presence in Iraq and opportunity to strike at Americans it did not have prior to the invasion."

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), vice chairman of the panel, and three other Republican members said the assessments were "not a crystal ball" and that the warnings emphasized in the committee report "lacked detail or specificity that would have guided military planners." Overall, the Republicans said the report "exaggerates the significance of the prewar assessments" and that the inquiry itself "has become too embroiled in politics and partisanship."

Most of the information in the report was drawn from two lengthy assessments issued by the National Intelligence Council in January 2003, titled "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq" and "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq," both of which the Senate report reprints with only minor redactions. The assessments were requested by Richard N. Haass, then director of policy planning at the State Department, and were written by Paul R. Pillar, the national intelligence officer for the Near East, as a synthesis of views across the 16-agency intelligence community.

The report includes lists indicating that the analyses, which were reported by The Washington Post last week, were distributed at senior levels of the White House and the State and Defense departments and to the congressional armed services and appropriations committees. At the time, the White House and the Pentagon were saying that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators, democracy would be quickly established and Iraq would become a model for the Middle East. Initial post-invasion plans called for U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in summer 2003.

The classified reports, however, predicted that establishing a stable democratic government would be a long challenge because Iraq's political culture did "not foster liberalism or democracy" and there was "no concept of loyal opposition and no history of alternation of power."

[Mr. Anderson]

Here is an interesting little nugget.

I was listening to a recent David Ray Griffin lecture and heard him mention that Osama Bin Laden (I know...who's he?) is on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list but NO WHERE does it mention his connection to the attacks of September 11th.

I checked it out. He's right! Here is the link directly from the FBI website.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

I'm sure it's just a minor oversight on behalf of the FBI.:rolleyes:

[Jane of Arc]

WoW!!!!