112 share
<<< The Do-Gooder "peace at ANY price" cabal took this dedication, removed the actual characters involved, and turned it into a multi-national tribute. Bastards.
From the Editor: Understand that the “do-gooder” collective, those who know so much more than the rest of humanity, and, are infinitely more empathetic (emphasis on “ . . . . pathetic”) than the rest of Aermica, immediately took control of the “body count,” hoping to avoid a military reaction on the part of the
Nearly 2,800 victims - not all of
them have been identified, however.
The disaster was so comprehensive
that fewer than 300
whole bodies were found
Of the totals, above,
fewer than1,600 victims have been identified while
over1,100 victims remain
unidentified
(over800victims identified by DNA
alone)
More than 1000 persons have been declared as "missing" but no
body parts for these individuals were ever found.
Nearly 22,000 pieces of bodies
found but not identified.
Authorities interviewed on Fox
News (first week in May of 2014)
posit that, of these 22,000
body parts, as many as 8,000
unidentified and uncounted
individuals could be included, brfing the
real death toll to as many as
10,800 persons PLUS the 1,000 persons
declared as missing with absolutely no trace, for a possible total of
11,800 individuals dead because of Islamic Jihad against our Country.
11,800 individuals dead because of Islamic Jihad against our Country.
Nearly10,000 unidentified pieces
frozen for future analysis
__________________________
References
1. Closure from 9/11 Elusive for Many, USA Today, 9/3/03 [cached]
2. World Trade Center death toll drops by two, cnn.com, 11/2/02 [cached]
3. First victims identified by DNA testing, Guardian, 10/25/01 [cached]
4. 1000 9/11 victims 'never identified', news.com.au, [cached]
5. Memories of 9/11, 9/11/03 [cached]
6. Forensics at New York's Ground Zero Ends, AP, 2/23/05 [cached]
7. More human remains found on roof next to World Trade Center site, USA Today, 4/6/06 [cached]
8. More 9/11 bone fragments found, USAToday.com, 4/13/06 [cached]
9. 400 bits of bone on bldg. roof, NYDailyNews.com, 4/14/06 [cached]
10. Relatives Of 9/11 Victims Speak Out Against City's Recovery Efforts, NY1 News, 10/20/06 [cached]
11. Officials warned 9/11 search too rushed, Chron.com, 10/23/06 [cached]
12. Remains of More 9/11 Victims Identified, AP, 4/8/08 [cached]
13. Latest NYC 9/11 Search Finds 72 Human Remains, CBSNews.com, 6/23/2010 [cached]
1. Closure from 9/11 Elusive for Many, USA Today, 9/3/03 [cached]
2. World Trade Center death toll drops by two, cnn.com, 11/2/02 [cached]
3. First victims identified by DNA testing, Guardian, 10/25/01 [cached]
4. 1000 9/11 victims 'never identified', news.com.au, [cached]
5. Memories of 9/11, 9/11/03 [cached]
6. Forensics at New York's Ground Zero Ends, AP, 2/23/05 [cached]
7. More human remains found on roof next to World Trade Center site, USA Today, 4/6/06 [cached]
8. More 9/11 bone fragments found, USAToday.com, 4/13/06 [cached]
9. 400 bits of bone on bldg. roof, NYDailyNews.com, 4/14/06 [cached]
10. Relatives Of 9/11 Victims Speak Out Against City's Recovery Efforts, NY1 News, 10/20/06 [cached]
11. Officials warned 9/11 search too rushed, Chron.com, 10/23/06 [cached]
12. Remains of More 9/11 Victims Identified, AP, 4/8/08 [cached]
13. Latest NYC 9/11 Search Finds 72 Human Remains, CBSNews.com, 6/23/2010 [cached]
Bush let this happen, was warned no less than 40 times of an impending attack. After receiving the most specific and dire warnings, he went on vacation... FOR A MONTH.
ReplyDeleteSmithson loves to repeat his "fact" that "no terrorist attacks occurred under Bush's watch". Can you imagine that level of denial? It's unbelievable.
You comments about Bush are nothing short of mental. He was in office seven and half freaking months before 9/11, you moron. He didn't even have all his cabinet in place. But he did leave Bill Clinton's CIA in tactic and George Tenet at the helm. What is a fact is this, the plot to take down the twin towers was fully planned out in the last months of the Clinton years. Now, I am not blaming Clinton for the disaster, although looking back, there were several things that could have been done differently, but nothing could have been done differently, in seriously practical terms, with a new president in office for 7 months.
ReplyDeleteBush failed to act on 9/11 warnings, he tried to manipulate 9/11 Commission to cover his negligence.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.smh.com.au/news/world/they-knew-but-did-nothing/2008/03/07/1204780065676.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
It would later be revealed by the 9/11 commission into the September 11 attacks that more than 40 presidential briefings presented to Bush from January 2001 through to September 10, 2001, included references to bin Laden.
Emails from the National Security Council's counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats. He was trying to get her to focus on the intelligence she should have been reading each morning in the presidential and senior briefings
"Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations" (April 20)
"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (May 3)
"Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot" (May 23)
"Bin Ladin's Networks' Plans Advancing" (May 26)
"Bin Ladin Threats Are Real" (June 30)
"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent" (June 23)
"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (June 25)
"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (June 30),
"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (July 2)
Then came the famous Aug 6, 01 briefing - "bin Laden determined to strike in US." This is how it was handled by Rice in a press conference:
It would later become clear to many of the commission's members and its staff that she had tried to mislead the White House press corps about the contents of the briefing.
She acknowledged that Bush had received a briefing about possible al-Qaeda hijackings, but she claimed that the brief offered "historical information" and "was not a warning - there was no specific time, place, or method".
She failed to mention, as would later be clear, that the briefing focused entirely on the possibility that al-Qaeda intended to strike within the United States; it cited relatively recent FBI reports of possible terrorist surveillance of government buildings in New York.
Asked if September 11 didn't represent an intelligence failure by the Administration, Rice replied almost testily: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Centre, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon - that they would try to use an airplane as a missile."
Rice's news conference came eight months after the attacks. Yet she was suggesting that in all that time, no one had bothered to tell her that there were indeed several reports prepared within the CIA, the aviation administration, and elsewhere in the Government about the threat of planes as missiles. Had no one told her in all those months that the Department of Defense had conducted drills for the possibility of a plane-as-missile attack on the Pentagon? Had she forgotten that when she and Bush attended the G8 summit in Italy in July 2001, the airspace was closed because of the threat of an aerial suicide attack by al-Qaeda?
And then there is this:
[911 Commissioner] Bass told colleagues that he gasped when he found a memo written by Clarke to Rice on September 4, 2001, exactly a week before the attacks, in which Clarke seemed to predict what was just about to happen. It was a memo that seemed to spill out all of Clarke's frustration about how slowly the Bush White House had responded to the cascade of terrorist threats that summer. The note was terrifying in its prescience.
"Are we serious about dealing with the al-Qaeda threat? Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] has not succeeded in stopping al-Qaeda attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead..." -- National Security Council's counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, Sept 4, 2001
By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on al Qaeda's intentions. - 9/11 Commission, 4/12/04
ReplyDeleteSo had Vice President Cheney and Bush's top national security team, according to declassified information released by the 9/11 Commission in April, '04.
After discussing this with a few wingnut bloggers, I have been inspired to do a history review.
Anti Terrorism Director Richard Clarke repeatedly asked for a meeting with Bush on the bin Laden threat but was denied.
The PDB Bush received a month before 9/11 was entitled "bin Laden determined to strike in US" mentioned specifically:
"a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks"
"Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft"
"patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
"Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef"
The amazing thing is that Tenet warned Bush 40 times. Yes, count them - 40 times bin Laden was mention in Presidential Daily Brief's from March 23-Sept 10, 01. For example:
April 20, '01 briefing entitled: "Bin Ladin planning multiple operations."
May 16 - "Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using high explosives."
May 17 - "UBL: Operation Planned in U.S."
June 22 - "intelligence suggesting a possible al Qaeda suicide attack on a U.S.target."
A terrorist threat advisory distributed in late June indicated a high probability of near-term "spectacular" terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties. Other reports' titles warned,"Bin Ladin Attacks May be Imminent" and "Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats."
June 25 - Clarke warned Rice and Hadley that six separate intelligence reports showed al Qaeda personnel warning of a pending attack.
June 28 - Clarke wrote Rice that the pattern of al Qaeda activity indicating attack planning over the past six weeks "had reached a crescendo." "A series of new reports continue to convince me and analysts at State, CIA, DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], and NSA that a major terrorist attack or series of attacks is likely..."
July 5 - CIA briefed Attorney General Ashcroft on the al Qaeda threat, warning that a significant terrorist attack was imminent. Ashcroft was told that preparations for multiple attacks were in late stages or already complete and that little additional warning could be expected.
July 23, the lead item for Counterterrorism Security Group discussion was the al Qaeda threat,and it included mention of suspected terrorist travel to the United States. Tenet told Bush that "the system was blinking red." By late July, Tenet said, it could not "get any worse."
What did our commander in chief do after receiving these dire warnings for months? He went on vacation - for a month.
Bush was warned that the terrorist were going to attack the United States of America again, and sometime soon ??? Duh. And the notion that Bush went on a one month vacation after being on the job for 6 months is pathetic. He simply did not do this. Check out his daily schedule and you will see that he was extreme busy and had a full schedule throughout this time.
ReplyDeleteEVERYONE knew the terrorist were planning an attack on the United States, somewhere, soon. . Let's remember that it was George Tenet who swore there were WMD's in Iraq.
Like I have said before, Bush was in office just 7 months before the attacks and no one knew it was going to be a passenger jet attack on several locations . . . . . . . . . AND all of this was planned during the last year of Clinton . . . . . all of it. Whose fault was it? The terrorists' , you moron.
See anything in your partisan quotes (anyone can find such material to cut and paste, dude) that suggests an attack with several planes - at least 5 planes, one was not successfully boarded by the terrorists - attacking the Towers, the Pentagon, the Congressional complex, and the White House.
Your quotes make it sound as if CIA Director George Tenet knew, but was waiting for Bush to tell him to try to find out the details of the coming attack . . . . . . as if our entire intel complex was doing nothing, waiting for instructions from Bush. And you have a college degree??? Good grief.
George Tenet and Clinton's CIA were hardly the Bush Administration's handiwork. ALL of our intel complex was the work of the Clinton Administration at the time of the Twin Towers 9/11 attacks. . . . . . all of it. Clinton told Bush about the various terror threats facing the nation and his Iraqi regime-change plans. Bush, then, decided to leave the Clinton CIA alone, not knowing of the communication walls installed by Jamie Gorelich that barred the sharing of intel information, Of course, Clinton thought he was doing the right thing, but so did Bush. And, most definitely, Bush thought Clinton's CIA was working perfectly well. Why wouldn't he?
ReplyDeleteSo, you can make up all the stories you want, but nothing changes the facts, After Bush changed the administration of the CIA and the intelligent community at large, after he got rid of the Gorelich barriers, after he fixed the problems, we were safe . . . . . period . . . . . . . . . . until Obama erected the Gorelich barriers, again, stopped interrogating members of the terrorist community, started kissing up to the Muslim Brotherhood, announced that we were no longer a Christian" nation, turned against Israel, moved to allow Iran to become a nuclear power, and began to unilaterally disarm our nation. Between 9/11 and the end of 2008, no terror attacks were made. Under Obama, there have been six in his first five years, six that we know about.
So, the Libs blame Bush 7 months into his new term as president, but give Obama a pass after 5 years of failures. The way I figure, if it ain't Obama's fault, then it ain't Bush's fault for many of the same reasons.
ReplyDeleteAll of the quotes above were taken directly from Presidential briefings... which Bush IGNORED and went on vacation for 27 days.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/04/the_outoftowner.html
It is now coming to light that Bush ignored more warnings before 9/11 than we thought.
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-report-shows-how-many-warnings-about-bin-laden-were-ignored-by-the-bush-white-house-2012-9
You can't change history.
It's a matter of historical FACT>
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html?PHPSESSID=503f784f1472665bf3771a89c90d1c7e
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0
U.S. military commanders asked for additional funds to meet a looming domestic terrorist threat, and the Senate Armed Services Committee attempted to reprogram $600 million from Bush’s missile defense. The Bush response: a presidential veto. The date: September 9, 2001.
ReplyDeleteWhat did George Bush do after receiving his second serious warning of imminent danger to the nation whose protection and defense he had sworn to uphold? Bush replied to the CIA briefer, "All right. You’ve covered your ass, now," and spent the rest of the day fishing.
Apparently nothing at all could cut short this president’s month-long August vacation.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/media/news/2011/08/18/10069/think-again-remember-bushs-vacation/
By the end of that August, though Bush had only been in office since January 20, he had already managed 96 days of vacation time, or nearly 14 times as much as most Americans enjoyed during that period. As it happens, Bush ended up setting a presidential record for vacation days taken—977 days over the course of his two administrations or an unbelievable 40 percent of his presidency.
Your last "comment" and related themes in the others, are nothing but Democrat talking points, and WE ALL KNOW, without doubt, that the political theory of "ends and means" allows for Democrats to lie about anything, in order to advance the "cause" for the greater good. Lying is not just systemic, it is Democrat policy. But let's look at the lies told in your last "comment."
ReplyDeleteFirst, Bush took NO vacation during the pre-9/11 days . . . . not one. His "vacation" was the time he spent at his ranch. Have you seen his offices at the ranch? Have you read the daily schedule?
Your "source" for the crap you present to my readership comes from the Center for American Progress, a site dedicated to Saul Alinsky's brand of social reform, a site whose owners believe in and practice lying and misinformation for the purpose of advancing the Progressive cause. They believe that the "ends justify the means" for accomplishing those "ends" and are no more trustworthy than is Putin or Obama. The endorsement of lying to further political goals should disqualify anyone from representing any cause. The fact is this, Bush worked every day as President and the daily schedules prove my point.
Secondly, Obama has played golf 170 times, spending 85 days on the links, or 4 working months. More importantly, before 2012, Obama spent his days giving speeches, 2,300 speeches in the first three years. If you allow 3 hours per speech for prep time, travel to and back, and the speeches themselves, we have a performer as "president," not a reformer. Understand there are 1095 days in a 3 year period of time. Obama talked for 863, 8 hour days. That means that he worked 236 days of the 1095 days, possible, and, these numbers came from network coverage, not some wacko group that gladly uses lies to make their case.