Moussaoui the 20th hijacker was in FBI custody in Minneapolis for weeks prior to 9/11!Why weren't the FBI agents who arrested him called to testify at the 911 commission?Why does retired FBI agent Coleen Rowley states that FISA warrants were denied by FBI HQ/Washington.Denial of warrants obstructed terrorism investigations!
Bush recieved a briefing on 8/6/01 stating Bin Laden determined to strike inside US!
WE THE PEOPLE deserve to know what Bush did to protect Americas national security from terrorism from the day he took office until 9/11!!!
Why would he only meet with the 911 commission behind closed doors without being sworn in and with Cheney in attendance?
2007-10-09 16:57:15 · 11 answers · asked by honestamerican 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why do you say move on?
Why can't you explain why these facts are ignored?
It shows who the real traitors are who are afraid of an investigation!
Republicans spent more on finding out about clintons BJ then they did on Americas worst manmade tragedy since Pearl Harbor!
2007-10-09 17:07:36 · update #1
YEAHBOY- these are FACTS !!!
Why didn't the FBI agents who arrested Moussaoui testify before the 911 commission?
2007-10-09 17:10:40 · update #2
DANIEL- read what i said to yeahboy! These are facts!
I think the people deserve to know what orders did Bush give to ensue national security after receiving that briefing!
2007-10-09 17:14:37 · update #3
agent archer sure but keep in mind that most of that planning WAS done on Bush Srs watch!
2007-10-09 17:26:29 · update #4
Most of the sh*t blown up on clintons watch was outside of the country!
2007-10-09 17:29:54 · update #5
yes and the starr investigation cost 64 million
2007-10-09 17:33:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What more do you want from an investigation? The 9/11 Commission was very thorough and detailed in their investigation and placed much blame on Bush, the CIA, FBI, and many other agencies. They said more should have been done to protect America. I don't know what more you want. 9/11 Commission part 2: "Yeah, what we said before"!
edit: What exactly are you looking for? Have you read the 9/11 commission report. It says what happened during the first nine months of office. Pretty much a rollover of the Clinton Administrations terrorism attitude. You're asking for another investigation for no reason. It has been explained, it has been documented, and many errors did happen. What? Do you want a second by second account of what Bush and his people did the first 9 months? If not, it's already been reported and documented.
2007-10-09 17:10:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I would like to see a new investigation that revealed all the things that Bill Clinton failed to do in the 5 years between the time he was warned about the 9-11 attack til he left office. Far as I am concerned Bush carries none of the blame for this attack, I would bet that since Clinton discounted the idea, his people barely menctioned it to Bush. That the reason why i know there won't be a new investigation, it would make the
Democrats in general and Hillery in particular look bad.
2007-10-09 17:40:32 · answer #3 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. We know who was behind 9/11. You just refuse to accept it. Tax payer money shouldn't be used to pay for another investigation, that you wouldn't accept anyway, just to satisfy the blood lust fringe quacks feel for President Bush.
/EDIT:
"Republicans spent more on finding out about clintons BJ then they did on Americas worst manmade tragedy since Pearl Harbor!"
Yet another lie from the left.
Congress spent $6.2 million on the investigation into the Lewinsky scandal.
The 9/11 Commission spent a total of $11 million dollars.
This is another example of how the left simply ignore facts. They like to throw around the $3 million number. Which is true. President Bush initially allocated $3 million to the 9/11 Commission. Why? Because that's all he could allot without going to congress. When the 9/11 Commission asked for an additional $8 million, they got it. Despite what the left will tell you and despite what the Times reported.
2007-10-09 17:03:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
How about re-investigating the 1993 attack of the towers? Seems pretty easy to blame a blind guy.
It's amusing how terrorism became an inside job after Bush took office. All the **** blown up on Clinton's watch never raised any eyebrows. I see a serious credibility issue with that. I guess when he's out of office, the attacks will have been carried out by actual terrorists again.
2007-10-09 17:20:41 · answer #5 · answered by Agent Archer 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It should not be a marketing campaign difficulty, with the aid of fact maximum individuals are too ignorant approximately 9/11 to understand why somebody could want the study reopened, different than writing them off as conspiracy nut jobs. it is going to possibly be reopened, yet i do no longer think of human beings working for workplace could dare run on it. Congress would desire to do it.
2016-10-08 22:47:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who brings up 9/11 as a conspiracy will be labeled as a nut by both the media and most Americans and be out of the race. No one believes in the conspiracy theories - liberals, conservatives, independents almost to a person reject this stuff.
2007-10-09 17:20:38 · answer #7 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Anyone who would use that for their campaign issue should be strung up by their toes!!!! If they do, I would think it could only hurt Clinton since she was in office, oh I am sorry he was in office at the time of the first attack.
2007-10-09 17:34:07 · answer #8 · answered by Eyes Wide Open 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No because you conspiracy theorists will say that there cover up continues. Conspiracy theorists will not be satisfied with an outcome that contradicts their unfounded and forgone conclusions.
2007-10-09 17:55:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
We need to move on. By continuing to harp on this issue, it only takes your eye off the ball from today and tomorrow's problems.
2007-10-09 17:02:37 · answer #10 · answered by - 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋