PDA

View Full Version : Bush Speech Terror Claim Debunked A Year Ago



Hardrock69
01-26-2007, 09:37 AM
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 24, 2007

A claim made by President Bush in his State of the Union speech last night, that an attack on an L.A. skyscraper had been averted, was universally debunked as a hoax by Mayors, CIA, FBI and NSA personnel and counter-terror experts nearly a year ago when it first surfaced. By regurgitating this fraud, Bush has committed an impeachable offense by knowingly lying to the American people.

Bush's address was punctuated with deception, horse hockey and propagandistic drivel throughout, again reinforcing a characteristic that was born in 2003 when Bush told the nation that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger, a claim the CIA had informed the administration was based on falsified documents ten months before it was included in the speech.

Amidst the cacophony of bullshit came this belter.

"We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast."

According to numerous public officials, terror experts and intelligence personnel, this is simply not true.

Bush's is referring to an announcement made on February 9th last year in which he made the claim that an Al-Qaeda plan to fly a plane into the LA Library Tower was thwarted in 2002. The release of the news that the plot had been prevented by means of tapping terrorist suspect's phones was politically timed to coincide with the start of legal hearings on the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program.

Fox "News," the White House's PR mouthpiece, immediately began showing footage from the movie Independence Day, in which the famous tower is destroyed.

Hours after the announcement, the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, went public with comments of his absolute bewilderment concerning the alleged plot.

"I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president — but somebody."

The day after the announcement, twenty three separate intelligence experts, all with either CIA, FBI, NSA or military credentials, both in and out of service, angrily disputed Bush's remarks about the alleged L.A. plot, with one going as far as saying that the President was "full of shit."

Another described the claims as “worthless intel that was discarded long ago.”


A New York Times story cited "several counter-terrorism officials" as saying that "the plot never progressed past the planning stages.... 'To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,' said one senior FBI official."

The New York Daily News cited another senior counterterrorism official who said: "There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage."

The Washington Post also dismissed the alleged plot as nothing more than talk, noting that no actual attack plan had been thwarted.

The LA attack plot arose from the same discredited informant who said that Washington and New York financial institutions were being targeted, which led the White House to raise the terror alert right as the 2004 election campaign was beginning.

"The President has cheapened the entire intelligence community by dragging us into his fantasy world," said a veteran field operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. "He is basing this absurd claim on the same discredited informant who told us Al Qaeda would attack selected financial institutions in New York and Washington."

In June 2004 John Pistole, the FBI's counterterrorism director, said he was "not sure what [the CIA] was referring to," after a CIA counterterrorism official who testified under the alias "Ted Davis" said that the US had prevented aviation attacks against the east and west coast.

Questions were raised at the White House press briefing as to the noticeably convenient announcement of a four year old alleged foiled plot in relation to the furore about domestic spying.

"But is it just a coincidence? You had February 6th circled on the calendar for the hearings, the NSA hearings. Is it just a pure coincidence that this comes out today?" asked one journalist.

"Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn't you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story?" asked another.

There was indeed a great deal missing from this story in that it was nothing more than hot air manufactured by the Bush administration at the most politically expedient time, a psychological fraud unleashed on the public in order to silence critics of the illegal NSA surveillance spying program.

Bush has again committed the impeachable offense of knowingly lying to the American people in regurgitating the debunked plot in last night's State of the Union address.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/240107terrorclaim.htm

FORD
01-26-2007, 12:30 PM
If Chimpy's lips are moving (and Jeff Gannon's cock isn't there) he's lying.

Hardrock69
01-31-2007, 07:25 PM
Well, here is a rather lengthy piece from MSNBC by Keith Olbermann, where they basically say themonkey went 0 for 4 in the SOTU speech:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16893899/


Bush shoots for ‘Jaws,’ delivers ‘Jaws 2’
President claimed to stop four terror plots, but where is the evidence?

SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
Updated: 9:20 p.m. CT Jan 30, 2007

West Yorkshire in England has a new chief police constable.

Upon his appointment, Sir Norman Bettison made one of the strangest comments of the year:

“The threat of terrorism,” he says, “is lurking out there like ‘Jaws 2.’”

Sir Norman did not exactly mine the richest ore for his analogy of warning. A critic once said of the flopping sequel to the classic film: “You’re gonna need a better screenplay.”

But this obscure British police official has reminded us that terrorism is still being sold to the public in that country — and in this — as if it were a thrilling horror movie and we were the naughty teenagers about to be its victims.

And it underscores the fact that President Bush took this tack, exactly a week ago tonight, in his terror-related passage in the State of the Union.

A passage that was almost lost amid all the talk about Iraq and health care and bipartisanship and the fellow who saved the stranger from an oncoming subway train in New York City.

But a passage ludicrous and deceitful. Frightening in its hollow conviction.

Frightening, in that the president who spoke it tried for “Jaws” but got “Jaws 2.”

I am indebted to David Swanson, press secretary for Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign, who has blogged about the dubious 96 words in Mr. Bush’s address this year and who has concluded that of the four counter-terror claims the president made, he went 0-for-4.

“We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented,” Mr. Bush noted, “but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al-Qaida plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast.”

This would, of course, sir, be the purported plot to knock down the 73-story building in Los Angeles, the one once known as the Library Tower — the one you personally revealed so breathlessly a year ago next month.

It was embarrassing enough that you mistakenly referred to the structure as the “Liberty Tower.”

But within hours it was also revealed that authorities in Los Angeles had had no idea you were going to make any of the details — whether serious or fanciful — public.

Who terrorized Southern California that day, Mr. Bush?

A year ago next month, the Los Angeles Times quoted a source — identified only by the labyrinthine description “a U.S. official familiar with the operational aspects of the war on terrorism” — who insisted that the purported “Library Tower plot” was one of many al-Qaida operations that had not gotten very far past the conceptual stage.

The former staff director of counter-terrorism for the National Security Council — now a news analyst for NBC News and MSNBC — Roger Cressey, puts it a little more bluntly.

In our conversation, he put the “Library Tower story” into a category he called the “What-Ifs” — as in the old “Saturday Night Live sketches that tested the range of comic absurdity:

What if ... Superman had worked for the Nazis?

What if ... Spartacus had had a Piper Cub during the battle against the Romans in 70 B.C.?

More ominously, the L.A. Times source who debunked the Library Tower story said that those who could correctly measure the flimsiness of the scheme “feared political retaliation for providing a different characterization of the plan than that of the president.”

But Mr. Bush, you’re the decider.

And you decided that the Library Tower story should be scored as one for you.

And you continued with a second dubious claim of counter-terror success. “We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States,” you said.

Well, sir, you’ve apparently stumped the intelligence community completely with this one.

In his article, Mr. Swanson suggests that in the last week there has been no reporting even hinting at what exactly you were talking about.

He hypothesizes that either you were claiming credit for a ring broken up in 1995 or that this was just the Library Tower story “by another name.”

Another CIA source suggests to NBC News that since the Southeast Asian cell dreamed of a series of attacks on the same day, you declared the Library Tower one threat thwarted, and all their other ideas, a second threat thwarted.

Our colleague Mr. Cressey sums it up:

This “Southeast Asian cell” was indeed the tale of the Library Tower, simply repeated.

Repeated, Mr. Bush, in consecutive sentences in the State of the Union — in your constitutionally mandated status report on the condition and safety of the nation.

You showed us the same baby twice and claimed it was twins.

And then you said that was two for you.

Your third claim, sir, read thusly: “We uncovered an al-Qaida cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America.”

Again, the professionals in counter-intelligence were startled to hear about this.

Last fall, two Washington Post articles cited sources in the FBI and other governmental agencies who said that hopes by foreign terrorists to use anthrax in this country were fanciful at best, farcical at worst.

And every effort to link the 2001 anthrax mailings in this country to foreign sources has also struck out. The entire investigation is barely still active.

Mr. Cressey goes a little further. Anything that might even resemble an al-Qaida cell “developing anthrax,” he says, was in the “dreaming” stages.

He used as a parallel those pathetic arrests outside Miami last year in which a few men wound up getting charged as terrorists because they couldn’t tell the difference between an al-Qaida operative and an FBI informant.

Their “ringleader” seemed to be much more interested in getting his “terrorist masters” to buy him a new car than in actually terrorizing anybody.

That’s three for you, Mr. Bush.

“And just last August,” you concluded, “British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean.”

In a series of dramatic raids, 24 men were arrested.

urned out, sir, a few of them actually had gone on the Internets to check out some flight schedules.

Turned out, sir, only a few of them actually had the passports needed to even get on the planes.

The plot to which President Bush referred was a plot without bombs.

It was a plot without any indication that the essence of the operation — the in-flight mixing of volatile chemicals carried on board in sports drink bottles — was even doable by amateurs or professional chemists.

It was a plot even without sufficient probable cause.

A third of the 24 arrested that day — exactly 90 days before the American midterm elections — have since been released.

The British had been watching those men for a year.

Before the week was out, their first statement, that the plot was “ready to go, in days,” had been rendered inoperative.

British officials told NBC News of the lack of passports and plans; told us that they had wanted to keep the suspects under surveillance for at least another week.

Even an American official confirmed to NBC’s investigative unit that there was “disagreement over the timing.”

The British then went further. Sources inside their government told the English newspaper the Guardian that the raids had occurred only because the Pakistanis had arrested a man named Rasheed Raouf.

That Raouf had been arrested by Pakistan only because we had threatened to do it for them.

That the British had acted only because our government was willing — to quote that newspaper, The Guardian — to “ride roughshod” over the plans of British intelligence.

Oh, by the way, Mr. Bush, an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan reduced the charges against Mr. Raouf to possession of bomb-making materials and being there without proper documents.

Still, sir — evidently, that’s close enough.

Score four for you!

Your totally black-and-white conclusions in the State of the Union were based on one gray area, and on three palettes on which the experts can’t even see smudge, let alone gray.

It would all be laughable, Mr. Bush, were you not the president of the United States.

It would all be political hyperbole, Mr. Bush, if you had not, on this kind of “intelligence,” taken us to war, now sought to escalate that war, and are threatening new war in Iran and maybe even elsewhere.

What you gave us a week ago tonight, sir, was not intelligence, but rather a walk-through of how speculation and innuendo, guesswork and paranoia, daydreaming and fear-mongering, combine in your mind and the minds of your government, into proof of your derring-do and your success against the terrorists.

The ones who didn’t have anthrax.

The ones who didn’t have plane tickets or passports.

The ones who didn’t have any clue, let alone any plots.

But they go now into our history books as the four terror schemes you’ve interrupted since 9/11.

They go into the collective consciousness as firm evidence of your diligence, of the necessity of your ham-handed treatment of our liberties, of the unavoidability of the 3,075 Americans dead in Iraq.

Congratulations, sir.

You are the hero of “Jaws 2.”

You have kept the Piper Cub out of the hands of Spartacus.

hideyoursheep
01-31-2007, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by FORD
If Chimpy's lips are moving (and Jeff Gannon's cock isn't there) he's lying.


I want that on a T-shirt.:D

jharp84
02-23-2007, 10:06 PM
mE THINKS 3-LARGE SIZE TO FIT ALL THAT VERBAGE???? wHEN DOES HE DO THE JOHN LENNON?????

pflo
02-23-2007, 10:15 PM
Whatever, you had your chance to throw the stupid fuck out in 2004. You want a liar, you got a liar. Nothing you can do about it now.

FORD
02-23-2007, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by pflo
Whatever, you had your chance to throw the stupid fuck out in 2004. You want a liar, you got a liar. Nothing you can do about it now.

Remember that when Little Stevie Wonderbush turns YOUR country into a living nightmare, pflag.

http://www.jamesbezan.com/photo_main/Harper-and-Bush.gif

Nickdfresh
02-24-2007, 04:41 AM
Yeah Pflag, why did your country elect Bush-lite#3?

pflo
02-24-2007, 11:43 AM
Uh, because the Liberals were getting "loose" with federal grants towards sponsorship.So they were put in the doghouse for a year or two, but they will be welcomed back in this year.See, we dont have to wait four years like you. But I already went over that before. And we didnt illegally invade another country.Any other questions?

hideyoursheep
02-24-2007, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by pflo
Uh, because the Liberals were getting "loose" with federal grants towards sponsorship.So they were put in the doghouse for a year or two, but they will be welcomed back in this year.See, we dont have to wait four years like you. But I already went over that before. And we didnt illegally invade another country.Any other questions?

Yeah. Why are you so concerned aboot America when you have your own problems to deal with?
How does any of this affect you?

Nickdfresh
02-24-2007, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by pflo
Uh, because the Liberals were getting "loose" with federal grants towards sponsorship.So they were put in the doghouse for a year or two, but they will be welcomed back in this year.See, we dont have to wait four years like you. But I already went over that before. And we didnt illegally invade another country.Any other questions?

No, but your Special Service Force was disbanded --after torturing Somalis to death...

And what country COULD Canada illegally invade?

You guys couldn't even control the Quebec Aboriginals...

pflo
02-24-2007, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Yeah. Why are you so concerned aboot America when you have your own problems to deal with?
How does any of this affect you? Yeah, you're right. The US (not America, dipstick) has no influence outside its own borders. My bad.:rolleyes:

pflo
02-24-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

And what country COULD Canada illegally invade?

read that quote again, see if you can spot the irony.......

hideyoursheep
02-24-2007, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by pflo
Yeah, you're right. The US (not America, dipstick) has no influence outside its own borders. My bad.:rolleyes:

Not so...

We kept you "Americans"from watching the NHL a while back.

All 7 of you. :D

hideyoursheep
02-24-2007, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Yeah. Why are you so concerned aboot the United Fucking States of America when you have your own problems to deal with?
How does any of this affect you?


How 'bout a truthful answer rather than a sarcastic comeback this time,meathead?

pflo
02-24-2007, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
How 'bout a truthful answer rather than a sarcastic comeback this time,meathead? Since YOU asked and claim to actually care about my opinion - when your country illegally invades other countries or "exerts its influence" in other countries, it loses the right to be absolved from criticism from those outside its borders. That is, IF YOU DONT LIKE CRITICISM FROM THE OUTSIDE STAY INSIDE YOUR FUCKIN BORDERS. If that response isnt clear enough for you, tough tittie.:):rolleyes:

hideyoursheep
02-24-2007, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by pflo
Since YOU asked and claim to actually care about my opinion - when your country illegally invades other countries or "exerts its influence" in other countries, it loses the right to be absolved from criticism from those outside its borders. That is, IF YOU DONT LIKE CRITICISM FROM THE OUTSIDE STAY INSIDE YOUR FUCKIN BORDERS. If that response isnt clear enough for you, tough tittie.:):rolleyes:

South Africa is a long way from Canadian "America",why were Canadians in South Africa?
Make sure you read YOUR OWN post before you start getting self-righteous, pee flow!:rolleyes:

hideyoursheep
02-24-2007, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by pflo
read that quote again, see if you can spot the irony.......

NOTE:See above post.:eek:

pflo
02-24-2007, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
South Africa is a long way from Canadian "America",why were Canadians in South Africa?
Make sure you read YOUR OWN post before you start getting self-righteous, pee flow!:rolleyes: What the fuck you talkin bout, sambo? ARE YOU REFERRING TO 1899, 108 YEARS AGO?? Is that the best crap you can Google up?? OK, lets see....Canada was still a commonwealth entity back then; that it, we were still a British colony, and helping the Brits against the Dutch down there. We are no longer a colony, since 1982 we are an autonomous nation.Youre just pining for attention, arent you, you little post whore. 25 posts a day, huh? must be lonely wherever you at. Done with you.

pflo
02-24-2007, 10:27 PM
c

Nickdfresh
02-25-2007, 08:23 AM
bueno...,.

hideyoursheep
02-25-2007, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by pflo
Done with you.


Thank God.:rolleyes:

Angel
02-25-2007, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by pflo
What the fuck you talkin bout, sambo? ARE YOU REFERRING TO 1899, 108 YEARS AGO?? Is that the best crap you can Google up?? OK, lets see....Canada was still a commonwealth entity back then; that it, we were still a British colony, and helping the Brits against the Dutch down there. We are no longer a colony, since 1982 we are an autonomous nation.Youre just pining for attention, arent you, you little post whore. 25 posts a day, huh? must be lonely wherever you at. Done with you.


PFLO you dumb fuck!!! "The Somalia Affair was a Canadian military scandal in the mid-1990s. It began with the brutal 1993 beating death of a Somali teenager, Shidane Arone, at the hands of two Canadian soldiers participating in the United Nations humanitarian efforts in Somalia. The crime, documented by grisly photos, shocked the Canadian public and brought to light internal problems in the Canadian Airborne Regiment that went beyond the two soldiers directly involved. Questions were asked about why the unit was chosen for that mission despite disciplinary problems. Perhaps most damaging to the leadership of the Canadian military was how it reacted after the events became public, as accusations of covering up the event surfaced.

Eventually a public inquiry was called. Despite being controversially cut short by the government, the Somalia Inquiry found deep problems in the leadership of the Canadian Forces. The affair led to the disbanding of Canada's elite Canadian Airborne Regiment, greatly damaged the morale of the Canadian Forces, and damaged both the domestic and international reputation of Canadian soldiers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_Affair

Shut your fucking pie hole, you idiot!!! I'm the proudest Canuck you could ever find on this site, and many here will tell you that in a flash, but at least I admit we're not perfect...

EVERYONE PLEASE NOTE... THIS IDIOT IS NOT A TRUE REFLECTION OF THE INTELLIGENCE OF CANADIANS! Even FORD knows more about this country than this dumb fucking idiot does!

Nickdfresh
02-26-2007, 12:02 AM
Tell him Angel! :)

Angel
02-26-2007, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You guys couldn't even control the Quebec Aboriginals...

Nick, most Canucks don't understand the complexity of the Oka crisis, I highly doubt you do either.

knuckleboner
02-26-2007, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by pflo
What the fuck you talkin bout, sambo?

kinda tough to have a holier than thou attitude when one stoops to racial slurs.

Nickdfresh
02-26-2007, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Angel
Nick, most Canucks don't understand the complexity of the Oka crisis, I highly doubt you do either.

Perhaps not...but is was fun watching the standoff.:)

Angel
02-26-2007, 10:20 PM
I remember being pissed right off at the Natives... I was quite racist against our own at that time. I've learned a lot since then! I have a lot of respect for the native culture that I never used to have.

It's an extremely complex issue, and there have been wrongs done on both sides....

Angel
02-26-2007, 10:24 PM
I remember being pissed right off at the Natives... I was quite racist against our own at that time. I've learned a lot since then! I have a lot of respect for the native culture that I never used to have.

It's an extremely complex issue, and there have been wrongs done on both sides....

"as simple as a golf course on one side, as complex as native burial rights on the other".

Nickdfresh
02-26-2007, 10:39 PM
Sounds very familiar. I just might understand being from New York State...

Angel
02-27-2007, 11:15 AM
Yeah, a lot of the Warriors came up from NY State... unfortunately, that did NOT help the situation!

Nickdfresh
02-27-2007, 09:20 PM
They're good at shutting down the thruway (RT90).

There were some big battles between NYS Troopers and the Senecas around the same time...