Thread: NEVER FORGET 9/11/2001

.... That skyline will NEVER be the same

We will NEVER forget about Benghazi!



We will never forget September 11

Saturday, 06 September 2014 12:10

Ron Paul Believes Bush Admin. Had Advance Knowledge of 9/11 Attacks


Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.





What was on the 18- and-a-half minutes of tape erased by the Nixon White House? We’ll likely never know.
While theories and speculation about the content of that lost material still resonate, particularly in alcoves of the Internet, there is one contemporary puzzle that is beginning to attract the attention of lawmakers and citizens.
From the day of its release in 2002, 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 — commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission Report — have remained classified.


Not only is the content of those pages being kept hidden, but so is the reason for their continuing classification.
Although the public is prohibited from learning the content of the redacted portion of the report, a handful of lawmakers have looked through the protected pages and believe it is time to make Americans aware of what’s contained therein.
In an interview with former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul recorded on August 14, Representative Walter Jones (R-N.C.) gave Paul a glimpse into the procedure he (Jones) had to follow to read the redacted section.
You have to go down into a room that is guarded by uniformed officers, and then also you have an FBI person to sit there in the room. You can’t make any notes. The Bush people do not want it released. It’s not a national security issue. But it would be embarrassing to the previous administration if this information is opened for the public.... There will be no hope for America’s future if the American people don’t know the truth about a tragedy such as 9/11.
In December 2013, Representative Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) reported on his own experience with the document:
Twelve years after the horrific September 11 attacks, unanswered questions still remain. These pages contain information that is vital to a full understanding of the events and circumstances surrounding this tragedy. The families of the victims and the American people deserve better; they deserve answers, they deserve a full accounting, and that has not happened yet.
Ron Paul’s Voices of Liberty website published comments made by several other former and current legislators echoing the sentiments of Jones and Lynch.
Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) in a March 12, 2014 press conference with Congressman Jones and Congressman Lynch — “This is something the families deserve to know, this information. It’s been a decade — over a decade: 13 years — since this event happened. And we’ve had a narrative in the media and in the press and in the collective American conscience of what happened that day. But I don’t think it’s fully informed and it won’t be fully informed until everybody gets to see these 28 pages.... I had to stop every couple pages and just sort of absorb and try to rearrange my understanding of history for the past 13 years and the years leading up to that. It challenges you to rethink everything.”
Former Senator and Chairman of the Senate intelligence Committee Bob Graham (D-Fla.) in an interview with HuffPost Live in December 2013 — “This is not just a matter of something that happened a dozen years ago. This has real consequences today. It has real consequences in terms of justice. There are thousands of Americans who are victims of 9/11 who have been trying to secure justice through our federal court system and who have been largely blocked by our federal government through denying them access to information that would be necessary to successfully pursue their litigation and raising sovereign immunity on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
Former Congressman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) in an interview with independent journalist Luke Rudowski in 2001 — “We do not claim in this report to have written the final truth.”
And former Congressman Hamilton on C-SPAN coverage of the 9/11 Commission Report 10th Anniversary on July 22, 2014 — “I am embarrassed that they are not declassified. We emphasized throughout transparency. And I assumed incorrectly that our records would be public — all of them, everything. And then when I learned that a number of the documents were classified and even redacted, I was surprised and disappointed. I want those documents declassified. I am embarrassed to be associated with a work product that is secret.”
To put pressure on the Obama administration to make the classified portion of the 9/11 report public, Representatives Jones, Lynch, Massie, and seven others are co-sponsoring a resolution to that end.
House Resolution 428 specifically requests that the president “declassify the 28-page section of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001,” declaring that “ the contents of the redacted pages are necessary for a full public understanding of the events and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, attacks upon the United States,” and “the families of the victims and the people of the United States deserve answers about the events and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, attacks upon the United States.”
To add to the pressure on the president, on his Voices of Liberty website Paul is calling for all Americans to upload a video of themselves explaining why they believe the redacted portion of the 9/11 should be released.
We are calling on you to make your voice heard. Record a short, simple video message of yourself saying: "I deserve to know the truth hidden in the 28 classified pages of the 9/11 report."
Upload it to YouTube and share it on social media with the hashtag #Declassify, challenging others to do the same.
There is more to Paul’s push to completely declassify the document than just learning about the events after 9/11. In point of fact, in an interview with Charles Goyette, New York Times best-selling author and host of Money and Markets, the libertarian icon intimated that he believes the Bush administration had advance notice of the attacks.
“I believe that if we ever get the full truth [about 9/11], we’ll find out that our government had it in the records exactly what the plans were, or at least close to it,” said Paul, during the interview.
“Does that prove the fact that our president and others actually sat down and laid the plans and did this? I don’t think it does,” he added.
Finally, lest there be any doubt that Paul recognizes that Americans have more to fear from the terrorists on the Potomac than on the Tigris, Paul told Goyette:
Our own government did more harm to the liberties of the American people than bin Laden did. [Bin Laden] was a monster himself, but that was minor compared to the damage done financially, the people that have died. And here we are, 24 years, and we’re still fighting a war in the pretense that had something to do with 9/11.
While such efforts to pump sunshine into the shadowy recesses of government cover-ups are laudable, they seem to be asking the emperor to admit he’s naked. A congressional resolution — not even a bill, a resolution — meekly worded and completely non-binding is hardly the level of aggressive oversight a Congress committed to exposing conspiracies in high places would demonstrate.

^{Photo: AP Images}

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...b4b0-287785873

Remember


Remember
thedailysmug.blogspot.com


Never Forget

COPY THIS CANDLE AND POST ON YOUR G+
Thanks

H George Tavakoli


Shared publicly - 8:12 AM


H George Tavakoli originally shared:

In 2000 the 70-year-old Sir Evelyn de Rothschild married affluent businesswoman Lynn Forrester. They spent their wedding night at the White House in Washington DC, with Bill Clinton scuttling around serving them drinks and hors d’oeuvres. A year later, on September 11, 2001, the couple hired out the entire top two floors of a 5-star hotel in Manhattan. The hotel had a majestic view of New York.
At 9 am precisely on that fateful morning, September 11, 2001, the lucky couple stepped out onto their balcony where breakfast was served. They had ringside seats of the World Trade Center. They could see the Twin Towers glittering in the distance. They could see the first plane approaching through an azure blue sky … and then the fireworks … the explosions … the billowing smoke … and then the second plane approaching …. They could see men and women leaping from the towers … spiraling downward to their deaths on the concrete below.
As they sipped their coffees on the sunny balcony, musing on life and death and sex and shopping, they had the best seats in the house.

http://www.darkmoon.me/2014/911-shoc...uth-laid-bare/

Rothschild’$ Exposed: $500 Trillion Worth Includes: Bank of England, Reuters News, Associated Press, ABC,CBS, NBC, CNBC, CNN, Royal Dutch SHELL, Israel, Federal Reserve, US/UK Governments, CIA, NATO, Half Of World

http://ministerpresidentrutte.wordpr...hilds-exposed/

STUNNING FLASHBACK: Shows 9/11 on Fox News In Real Time

Posted on September 11, 2014


STUNNING FLASHBACK: Shows 9/11 on Fox News In Real Time - Clash Daily
clashdaily.com



Every American remembers where they were 13 years ago when they first found out about the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Here is a video that shows that day in real time on Fox News.

FOX NEWS INSIDER – As we mark the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we’re taking a look back at the events of the day that changed America.
In the video above, watch how the attacks unfolded on Fox News that morning.

video at link below

http://clashdaily.com/2014/09/stunni...ews-real-time/

The same politician who came into office stating that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," and who as recently as last year was lobbying Congress to repeal the Sept. 14, 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), is using the very same AUMF as its legal justification for the new Iraq/Syria war.


Obama’s B.S. Justification for His Illegal War: the 2001 AUMF
reason.com
Over at The Daily Beast, national security reporter Eli Lake analyzes the are-you-effin'-kidding-me news that the same politician who came into office




Obama’s B.S. Justification for His Illegal War: the 2001 AUMF

Matt Welch|

Sep. 11, 2014 10:59 am

Over at The Daily Beast, national security reporter Eli Lake analyzes the are-you-effin'-kidding-me news that the same politician who came into office stating plainly that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," and who as recently as last year was lobbying Congress to repeal the Sept. 14, 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) on grounds that it may lead to a "perpetual war," is using the very same AUMF as its legal justification for the new Iraq/Syria war. Excerpt:

Obama's using the law that authorized attacks against al Qaeda to justify his new fight in Syria and Iraq. One small problem: ISIS and al Qaeda are at each others' throats. Legal experts were shocked [....]
"On its face this is an implausible argument because the 2001 AUMF requires a nexus to al Qaeda or associated forces of al Qaeda fighting the United States," said Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "Since ISIS broke up with al Qaeda it's hard to make that argument." [...]
"I think they are going to get more heat for this implausible interpretation of the 2001 AUMF than they realize," said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who served as assistant attorney general at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and 2004.
Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow and research director in public law at the Brookings Institution, said the legal argument was a "very thin reed."
"If they are relying on the 2001 AUMF for this, then what the president is saying is, essentially: This war, like all wars, must end; we can't have endless wars; stop me before I sin again," he added. [...]
Wittes said that he took an expansive view of what would constitute associated forces for the 2001 AUMF. But he observed, "Surely associated forces doesn't mean forces that are actively hostile and have publicly broken with and been repudiated by al Qaeda. Whatever 'associated' means, I don't think it means that."
One Obama administration official said the argument that the new war is legal under the 2001 AUMF stems from the fact that ISIS began as a franchise of al Qaeda.

For those anti-Bush multilateralist Democrat types, Lake also points out that the war violates the United Nations Charter as well. Whole article here; you may also re-consult Lake’s prescient 2010 Reason piece on "The 9/14 Presidency."
The aforementioned Jack Goldsmith also has Time column out titled "Obama's Breathtaking Expansion of a President's Power To Make War." The sharp lead paragraph:

Future historians will ask why George W. Bush sought and received express congressional authorization for his wars (against al Qaeda and Iraq) and his successor did not. They will puzzle over how Barack Obama the prudent war-powers constitutionalist transformed into a matchless war-powers unilateralist. And they will wonder why he claimed to "welcome congressional support" for his new military initiative against the Islamic State but did not insist on it in order to ensure clear political and legal legitimacy for the tough battle that promised to consume his last two years in office and define his presidency.

Goldsmith link comes via the Twitter feed of former Obama-administration Pentagon employee Rosa Brooks, which is filled with piss and vinegar about the choices by her former boss.
After the jump, if you have an iron stomach, are some comments the president made last year about repealing the AUMF.

[T]he choices we make about war can impact -- in sometimes unintended ways -- the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing.
The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. The Afghan war is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.
So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands.

Matt Welch is editor in chief of Reason magazine and co-author with Nick Gillespie of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America, now out in paperback with a new foreword.
Follow Matt Welch on Twitter

http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/11/obamas-bs-justification-for-his-illegal#fold