White House, Capitol Briefly Evacuated (6 minutes ago...)

[Jolie Rouge]

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Capitol and White House were briefly evacuated Wednesday after a small plane entered restricted airspace over the city.

Security officials in several other government buildings, including the Treasury Department and the U.S. Supreme Court, ordered people to safer locations. Military aircraft were scrambled over the city.

President Bush was away from the White House, biking at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Beltsville, Md. Vice President Dick Cheney, in the White House, was moved to a "secure location" elsewhere, said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Congressional leaders were hustled from the Capitol by armed officers.

The incident began at 11:28 a.m., when Federal Aviation Administration radar picked up the aircraft, a small two-seater Cessna 150 with high wings, officials said. The aircraft breached the security zone over Washington, law enforcement officials said, prompting alerts across the city.

"Out of an abundance of caution, the appropriate security measures consistent with this type of violation went into effect," said Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.

Two Black Hawk helicopters were dispatched at 11:55 a.m. from Reagan National Airport, according to an FAA official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The plane came as close as four miles to the city, the official said.

The plane was approached by a fighter aircraft and escorted to a small airport in Frederick, Md. The pilot was being held by Maryland state police at the airport in Frederick, Justice Department spokesman Kevin Madden said.

The incident sparked a flurry of emergency activity throughout the capital, which was targeted on Sept. 11, 2001 and has been under a heightened state of alert since then.

Armed security officers raced through the Capitol shouting for people to leave. "This is not a drill," guards shouted as they moved people away from the building.

Sen. Richard Shelby (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala., was on the Senate floor when police told him they needed to evacuate. "They said get out of here, so I ran. There's no joking about this kind of stuff," Shelby said.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert was on the House floor talking to members when the evacuation siren went off. He left quickly with his security detail.

Large black armored SUVs often used by House and Senate leaders sped away from the Capitol as a military jet flew overhead.

"People were surprised. I was surprised," said Rep. Bob Ney R-Ohio, who was on the House floor when the evacuation began. "There was so much commotion in the gallery. People were yelling in the gallery. We thought something had happened in the gallery, and then the alarm came to evacuate."

Sarah Little, an aide to Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. said the order to evacuate came over the special pager devices that every congressional office has. "They said ... there is an imminent aircraft threat," she said.

Washington's Reagan National Airport has been closed to general aviation since the Sept. 11 attacks. In the 3 1/2 years since then, hundreds of small planes have flown within the restricted airspace around the capital — a 15 3/4-mile radius around the Washington Monument.

However, it's rare for fighter jets to be scrambled.

In the most dramatic incident since the Sept. 11 attacks, thousands of people fled the Capitol, packed with members of Congress and other dignitaries, when a plane flew into the restricted air space just before the funeral procession for President Ronald Reagan last June.

A communications breakdown led federal officials to believe the plane might be targeting the Capitol, but it turned out to be carrying Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who had been cleared to fly into the area.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050511/ap_on_go_co/capital

[mesue]

One might want to notice how quickly those fighter jets got there and then compare it to the 911 incident, I'm betting this time they flew at top speed. But, for some reason on 911 they flew at 25.8% and 27.4% of top speed.
http://www.911timeline.net/
It is also dedicated to Scott Shuger, who was the only mainstream or alternative media writer, beside myself, who had the courage to write about the elementary mathematical facts (that the two United States Air Force (USAF) F-15 fighters ordered to intercept United Airlines Flight 175 and the two or three USAF F-16 fighters ordered to intercept American Airlines Flight 77 were flying at only 25.8% and 27.4% of their top speed) of the NORAD Press Release of September 18, 2001. Scott’s article is called IGNORAD The Military Screw-up Nobody Talks About. Scott Shuger astonishingly died in a scuba diving accident on June 15, 2002.

[JCshopper]

One might want to notice how quickly those fighter jets got there and then compare it to the 911 incident, I'm betting this time they flew at top speed. But, for some reason on 911 they flew at 25.8% and 27.4% of top speed.
http://www.911timeline.net/
It is also dedicated to Scott Shuger, who was the only mainstream or alternative media writer, beside myself, who had the courage to write about the elementary mathematical facts (that the two United States Air Force (USAF) F-15 fighters ordered to intercept United Airlines Flight 175 and the two or three USAF F-16 fighters ordered to intercept American Airlines Flight 77 were flying at only 25.8% and 27.4% of their top speed) of the NORAD Press Release of September 18, 2001. Scott’s article is called IGNORAD The Military Screw-up Nobody Talks About. Scott Shuger astonishingly died in a scuba diving accident on June 15, 2002.

Conspiracy theories? Can't get much more original than that. On Sept. 11, they had no idea how to react, nobody was prepared for an attack with commercial airliners loaded with passengers. Today, we are prepared. Pilots know they may be forced to shoot down a plane full of innocent victims. They government knows it may have to happen. How would you have handled it that September morning?

[mesue]

Conspiracy theories? Can't get much more original than that. On Sept. 11, they had no idea how to react, nobody was prepared for an attack with commercial airliners loaded with passengers. Today, we are prepared. Pilots know they may be forced to shoot down a plane full of innocent victims. They government knows it may have to happen. How would you have handled it that September morning?

We have had NORAD for sometime (since the mid 1950's), it has a set of rules to follow and those set of rules were not followed on 911. For instance if a plane veers off course and does not make radio contact when requested fighter jets are sent out and that is without any orders from the President or VP. Those are standing orders and have been in place for sometime. How would I have handled it? Well hindsight is 20/20 but the rules were there and they followed them quite well in 1999 when Payne Stewart's plane veered off course. They immediately sent up fighter jets to intercept and shoot the plane down if neccessary.
see that story here http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews

Next link I've included part of a the info but I provide the link for the whole thing if you like to check it out.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnewshttp://www.druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Chapter%20V.htm
Air Traffic Controllers routinely request fighter craft to intercept commercial planes for various reasons when problems faced cannot be solved through radio contact, e.g. to inform commercial pilots when their plane is off course, or simply to assess the situation directly.

The deviation of commercial planes from their designated flight paths is a common problem solved via interception. As a matter of mandatory Standard Operating Procedures, no approval from White House is required for interception. On the contrary, interception occurs on the basis of established flight and emergency response rules. Military interceptors do not need instructions from the White House to carry out emergency response procedures and other such services—they already have clear “instructions to act,” which are followed automatically in relation to varying situations. Detailed FAA and Department of Defense manuals are available online, clarifying that these instructions are exceedingly comprehensive, including issues from minor emergencies to full-blown hijackings. According to these instructions, serious problems are handed over to the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon, if necessary.

Commercial flights must adhere to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). According to the IFR, before takeoff pilots must file a flight plan with the FAA:

“Commercial flights fly according to predefined flight plans. These flight plans are intended to provide quick routes that take advantage of favorable winds while avoiding the routes traveled by other aircraft. The usual flight plan is a series of three connected routes: a standard instrument departure (SID) route, an en route path, and a standard instrument arrival (STAR). Each route consists of a sequence of geographic points, or fixes, which, when connected, form a trajectory from the point of departure to the point of arrival.”[3]

As soon as a plane deviates from its flight plan—for instance, by making a wrong turn at a ‘fix’—an Air Traffic Controller contacts the pilot. If the Controller fails to make contact or routine communication becomes impossible, established rules dictate that an aircraft will be requested to scramble and assess the situation by ‘interception’. A clear example of this routine procedure is the FAA’s response when the Lear jet chartered by golf professional Payne Stewart deviated from its flight path while the pilot failed to reply by radio. MS-NBC reported that:

“Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They’ll call the plane, saying ‘American 11, you’re deviating from course.’ It’s considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched.”[4]

The FAA, in other words, immediately contacted the military when it was confirmed that the plane was off course, and communication with the plane was blocked. As CNN reported:

[JCshopper]

So what? No one has ever dealt with a real attack here, that was the difference. Multiple attacks. And just because there are steps in place does not mean they are fully understood. Not that it is right, but again two planes had been flown into two buildings and there was a lot of information about how many more could be in the air. The pentagon was hit... It was a very confusing time... much more so than a call about one small plane or jet that has not done any damage, just gone off course. How many stories are there about planes that have gone off course and nothing has happened? Many, many

[excuseme]

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050512/3/20tvw.html

Bush not told about plane scare until after biking

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush was not told for nearly an hour while he finished a bike ride about a breach in White House airspace on Wednesday that prompted the highest alert since the September 11, 2001, attacks, the White House said.

The White House said the Secret Service held off informing the president because he was not in danger and White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush was satisfied with how the situation was handled.

Bush was about a half-an-hour into his ride at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland when an unidentified Cessna airplane came near the White House, sending the Secret Service scrambling to evacuate Vice President Dick Cheney and move First Lady Laura Bush to a secure location.

McClellan said the president's Secret Service detail was informed about the plane at about 11:59 a.m., when the decision was made to raise the threat level at the White House to "yellow."

Fighter planes were immediately scrambled to intercept the plane, and the threat level at the White House was raised all the way to "red" before the "all clear" was given at 12:14 p.m.

McClellan said Bush was informed about the incident around 12:50 p.m. at the end of his ride. He left the reserve around 12:57 p.m. and returned to the White House at around 1:30 p.m., well after the security scare had ended.
ADVERTISEMENT

"The president was never in danger and the protocols in place after September 11 were followed," McClellan said. "The president has a tremendous amount of trust in his security detail and they were being kept apprised of the situation as it developed."

Bush had left the White House at about 11:03 a.m. and had arrived at Patuxent for the bike ride at 11:34 a.m.

"Given such circumstances and the fact that the plane turned away from the White House, the decision was made to inform the president upon conclusion of his bike ride," McClellan said.

McClellan later added, "there is always a review of the response to a situation of this nature."

[mesue]

So what? No one has ever dealt with a real attack here, that was the difference. Multiple attacks. And just because there are steps in place does not mean they are fully understood. Not that it is right, but again two planes had been flown into two buildings and there was a lot of information about how many more could be in the air. The pentagon was hit... It was a very confusing time... much more so than a call about one small plane or jet that has not done any damage, just gone off course. How many stories are there about planes that have gone off course and nothing has happened? Many, many

Apparently you did not bother reading that these events had occured in the past many times norad had sent fighter jets out to intercept flights that were veering off course. I even listed a well publicized one. What do you think the flight plan was the WTC? Those jets veered off course a long time before they hit the WTC and it was recognized by the flight controllers that they were off course, the standing orders were there the same ones that had been followed in the past but for some reason on that day were so delayed plus then the jets flew at less than 30% their speed. Those standing orders were in place for a reason it was recognized long ago that this type of thing could happen, they had standing orders to shoot a plane down if neccessary without Presidential orders so if you wish to believe that we all of a sudden made new rules for this after the event go ahead, but the standing orders and rules were already there and had been followed in the past. Also even though the orders were there and had been executed in the past there were drills for personnel on what to do, we are talking about highly trained professionals with written out orders on what to do. There was an incident a few years back where we shot a passenger jet out of the sky so if you want to buy the ,"we were not prepared for such an event", go ahead but don't expect all of us to buy it.

[Jolie Rouge]

POLL : When should the Air Force consider shooting down planes in D.C. airspace?

If it's clear the pilots are ignoring requests to divert. 59%

Only if they know the plane is a threat. 33%

Once it gets within range of the White House or Capitol. 8%

What would be your vote ??

[schsa]

It was a Cessna. I am sure that if the Secret Service or the FBI thought that it was that much of a threat they could have shot it out of the sky. I realize that whoever flew over the White House was a moron and will probably spend some time in jail. And I also realize that even a Cessna could hold a bomb of some sort but if that bomb fell whoever was in the Cessna would have been blown out of the skies.

I would only take a plane out if it's clear that the pilot was ignoring requests to divert. Because you never really know if it is a threat or not. But I would be less afraid of a Cessna than a 747 over the White House.

[JCshopper]

Apparently you did not bother reading that these events had occured in the past many times norad had sent fighter jets out to intercept flights that were veering off course. I even listed a well publicized one. What do you think the flight plan was the WTC? Those jets veered off course a long time before they hit the WTC and it was recognized by the flight controllers that they were off course, the standing orders were there the same ones that had been followed in the past but for some reason on that day were so delayed plus then the jets flew at less than 30% their speed. Those standing orders were in place for a reason it was recognized long ago that this type of thing could happen, they had standing orders to shoot a plane down if neccessary without Presidential orders so if you wish to believe that we all of a sudden made new rules for this after the event go ahead, but the standing orders and rules were already there and had been followed in the past. Also even though the orders were there and had been executed in the past there were drills for personnel on what to do, we are talking about highly trained professionals with written out orders on what to do. There was an incident a few years back where we shot a passenger jet out of the sky so if you want to buy the ,"we were not prepared for such an event", go ahead but don't expect all of us to buy it.

I did read it, though I did not need to. Obviously you did not read or understand what I said. There may be rules, guidelines, steps in place, but you cannot calculate human error and shock. You don't know how a human will react in any given situation. You can estimate, hope, and cross your fingers. Do you think the President or someone else of authority said ... hmmm, let's see, we'll just wait and see what they decide to fly into next... this is kind of fun and suspenseful? Get real.

[mesue]

I did read it, though I did not need to. Obviously you did not read or understand what I said. There may be rules, guidelines, steps in place, but you cannot calculate human error and shock. You don't know how a human will react in any given situation. You can estimate, hope, and cross your fingers. Do you think the President or someone else of authority said ... hmmm, let's see, we'll just wait and see what they decide to fly into next... this is kind of fun and suspenseful? Get real.

I am getting real you however don't seem to realize that we have been through this type of thing before, planes have veered off course in the past and those same humans followed procedure. I am not prepared to excuse the actions of norad or our entire defense system that has been in place for years and had not failed as oops 911 was a bad day for everyone, no one did their jobs on that day but thats ok we will get it right next time. Why don't you get real and stop excusing these people and start wondering why it failed on that particular day and no other? These people knew their jobs and they also knew the calculated loss by not following procedures and had never failed to follow procedure before. The website below is full of info including links to the press release from NORAD. While I'm willing to allow for human error I also am aware that those standing orders are in place to make sure that human error does not occur. There are no decisions to be made the standing orders are there to be followed to the letter. It is not a situation where one person says what to do, The orders are already there, there is no question of what to do or even when to do it, those orders had been followed over and over again but for some reason not on 911 and I have to wonder why and human error is just not good enough an answer for me .
http://vote.org/911/
Since 1958 NORAD and later the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) have maintained a seamless, constant watch on everything that flies, in air or outer space, and regularly send jet fighters to chase off-course planes that don't respond by radio. In the year before 9/11 they chased 67 planes.

[Jolie Rouge]

Anyone remember when some idiot flew a small plane INTO the east Wing of the White House during the Clinton Adminitrastion ?

[mesue]

Anyone remember when some idiot flew a small plane INTO the east Wing of the White House during the Clinton Adminitrastion ?

Yes I do, here is the review on it. For some reason I keep remembering seeing a reporter talking to Clinton about what he heard but this report says he was not present at the time.
PUBLIC REPORT

OF THE

WHITE HOUSE SECURITY REVIEW

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ustreas/usss/t1pubrpt.html

[stresseater]

Those planes veered off earlier than the target but it was unknown because the transponders were also turned off. By the time they had located them it was too late. I am sorry that you seem to be convenced of nefarious actions on the part ofwho again? Do you think Bush called and had the ever present standing orders recended? No wait he was talking to school kids so he didn't do it, and it would have made him look bad if he did. Hmmm Who would have had motive to make the Republican President look bad?? OH I can think of a few camps that could have benifitted from such an action. :rolleyes: ;) :D

[mesue]

Those planes veered off earlier than the target but it was unknown because the transponders were also turned off. By the time they had located them it was too late. I am sorry that you seem to be convenced of nefarious actions on the part ofwho again? Do you think Bush called and had the ever present standing orders recended? No wait he was talking to school kids so he didn't do it, and it would have made him look bad if he did. Hmmm Who would have had motive to make the Republican President look bad?? OH I can think of a few camps that could have benifitted from such an action. :rolleyes: ;) :D

Well to hear you tell it all a plane has to do is turn off their transponder and we are just helpless, heck if that were true we should be getting attacked like this all the time. Funny that we have radar that shows where planes are regardless of whether they have a transponder on or not, they still were picked up on radar and if one is to believe the popular story of cell phone calls then of course they were aware the planes were hi-jacked. But here is a couple of paragraphs that should tell you they could find the planes on radar. As for whether Bush knew or not or ordered anything I don't know, I do know that circumstances surrounding this mystery of what happened on that day have not been answered and your hero fought tooth and nail not to even have a commission to study it. The families had to demand it, that alone should raise red flags about a cover up of some sort. Maybe Bush was just trying to hide that he had called the FBI off of surveillance on some of his Saudi friends right before 911.
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/airT.htmControllers watching their radar screens at Washington Dulles International Airport spotted an unidentified aircraft flying at unusually high speed directly toward the White House early this morning, and warned authorities minutes before the Boeing 757 turned tightly and circled around to slam into the Pentagon, according to federal aviation sources.

The controllers could not identify the plane because apparently someone on board had turned off its transponder--the equipment that sends the plane's airline, flight number, speed and altitude to radar screens. Tentatively, the plane was identified as American Flight 77, which had been scheduled to take off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. for Los Angeles, with two pilots, four flight attendants and 58 passengers on board.

[JCshopper]

Well to hear you tell it all a plane has to do is turn off their transponder and we are just helpless, heck if that were true we should be getting attacked like this all the time. Funny that we have radar that shows where planes are regardless of whether they have a transponder on or not, they still were picked up on radar and if one is to believe the popular story of cell phone calls then of course they were aware the planes were hi-jacked. But here is a couple of paragraphs that should tell you they could find the planes on radar. As for whether Bush knew or not or ordered anything I don't know, I do know that circumstances surrounding this mystery of what happened on that day have not been answered and your hero fought tooth and nail not to even have a commission to study it. The families had to demand it, that alone should raise red flags about a cover up of some sort. Maybe Bush was just trying to hide that he had called the FBI off of surveillance on some of his Saudi friends right before 911.
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/airT.htmControllers watching their radar screens at Washington Dulles International Airport spotted an unidentified aircraft flying at unusually high speed directly toward the White House early this morning, and warned authorities minutes before the Boeing 757 turned tightly and circled around to slam into the Pentagon, according to federal aviation sources.

The controllers could not identify the plane because apparently someone on board had turned off its transponder--the equipment that sends the plane's airline, flight number, speed and altitude to radar screens. Tentatively, the plane was identified as American Flight 77, which had been scheduled to take off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. for Los Angeles, with two pilots, four flight attendants and 58 passengers on board.

Anyone who is going to agree with you, already does. You are not going to convince anyone else of this far fetched conspiracy theory. No President has the power to cover up that maybe he just "let" those planes hit those buildings. That's just crazy! The democrats are a super paranoid bunch these days and you are letting them convince you of this garbage. They are operating under the theory that the more **** you throw, eventually something has to stick. Sorry, that doesn't work for me.

[mesue]

Anyone who is going to agree with you, already does. You are not going to convince anyone else of this far fetched conspiracy theory. No President has the power to cover up that maybe he just "let" those planes hit those buildings. That's just crazy! The democrats are a super paranoid bunch these days and you are letting them convince you of this garbage. They are operating under the theory that the more **** you throw, eventually something has to stick. Sorry, that doesn't work for me.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything I simply made a comment that one should note that those planes probably flew at full speed while on 911 the facts prove they flew at less than 30% their speed, and then you said conspiracy theories how original. So I answered back with why I believe what I said by giving you facts. I'm very upset with the democrats right now but of course more upset with the republicans, to say that my thinking on this is due to my being a democrat is just not correct, I don't think along part lines, I looked at the facts and did not try to make excuse after excuse so that I could believe the lie everyone else is accounting for as human error, etc., all because they want to believe the lie so badly. Every fact presented to you you said human error, for some reason before 911 facts were good enough especially when there are so many of them that contradict the official story. I looked at the cold hard facts and they don't go with we have been told but as I said I am not trying to convince anyone just pointing out that there are reasons much stronger than my party line for what I believe. I don't automatically believe what my government tells me to believe, history has proven that in the past we have been lied to by our government. Even on 911 truths has come out that were earlier denied already, truths that were known and lied about. You may find it strange that I question the official story surrounding 911, I find it even stranger that anyone with any knowledge of history would not, I find it strange that people willingly believe what they are told without question, without even looking at it beyond that. I take the time to think for myself perhaps that makes me a conspiracy theorist or maybe it just makes me someone who looks at the facts.

[JCshopper]

I don't "think" along party lines either. And no I don't believe everything that is spoon fed to me. I just don't buy that someone, be it the President, NORAD, or the man in the moon, simply allowed 9/11 to take place. I believe that there are a great many things the government doesn't tell us. Imagine the wide spread panic that a lot of it would cause. People over-react all the time, to the tiniest things. Just imagine what would happen with a significant event or piece of information.

There are several things that this administration has done that I don't agree with, but the democrats (Clinton) didn't handle them any better. The illegal imigration situation comes to mind. 100,000 a month is the figure. That's scary. And what... let's just give them all healthcare and let the taxpayers cover it? I'd like the government to start focusing on something that may actually help this country, rather than bickering about something that cannot be changed. Let it go.

What ever happened to immigration laws... the INS? If they are here illegally, round them up and send them home!

[mesue]

Well there is a problem with immigration but one of the problems is that they really don't want to fix it, too many people making money working the immigrants cheap, look at how many politicians has gotten caught employing them. Look at how many farmers employ them and don't forget that these immigrants become victims they are sometimes robbed of their wages after working due to ,who you going to complain to not to mention the housing they receive, in one case I saw on tv ones home was a recliner under a tree, no shelter whatsoever. But for now they provide cheap labor to the rich that is why our borders are not closed.
BTW the reason NORAD did not respond on 911 as they normally would was two reasons, there were two training exercises that morning, those unknown blips showing up on radar was thought to have been just part of the exercise. The 911 commission barely touched upon it but in one of the recordings between a flight controller requesting they check it out and send up some help to see what was going on you can hear the NORAD person ask if it is real or an exercise that is why they did not react as usual. Why they flew at only 30% of their speed once they were told it was not a training exercise I do not know. I do know this either those terrorist had inside info that training exercises were going on that morning or great timing or perhaps and this is the conspiracy theorist in me the training exercises were done to put up a smoke screen to cover what was really happening. We need to get to the bottom of some very important questions about 911 so that it does not happen again. Like for instance why disable a whole system basically to me that is what occured with these two training exercises when we have a simulators and computers for training what is going to happen the next time they do this, are we going to be this vulnerable again?

[JCshopper]

Again, I am sorry, I see absolutely no reason why anyone, especially George Bush, would have wanted 9/11 to take place. Why would they have wanted the Twin Towers destroyed, the Pentagon attacked, thousands to die? What would they gain? I really think you're grasping at straws. Now, we are more prepared. WE KNOW THEY CAN SUCCEED! The Clinton Administration poo pooed all of the "alarmists" that warned of terrorist attacks. NOT ANYMORE. No one in government assumes that it's just "crazy talk" when they are warned of the possibilities of terrorist attacks, biological attacks, dirty bombs, and such. They know it can happen. Do you think they want to see that happen too? I choose to live my life thinking that, for the most part, my government tries it's best to protect it's people. What a scary place it must be to think otherwise. I don't think the Clinton's were turning their heads so an attack could take place when they were calling people crazy for warning of terrorist plots. I just think they were ignorant and naive. WE ARE NOT SO IGNORANT AND NAIVE anymore. I saw that man ( George Bush ), as did the rest of the country, cry for our losses on that day. I believe him to be a genuine man and an honorable man. That is my gut feeling. That is why I have faith in him.

[mesue]

Don't be sorry its ok I am surviving very well even though I totally believe there is much more to 911 and that we are being deceived but I have faith that eventually the truth will come out. You might want to think about the fact that most people who are conspiracy theorists are skeptics to begin with and most do not jump to conclusions or believe anything their told they go looking for facts, its only when the facts don't add up that a conspiracy theorist goes to look why and when they find somehting they investigate every little detail to death.
Clinton was not ignorant and naive he tried to tell Bush that OBL was a big threat but was ignored, Clinton even tried to have OBL killed twice, which btw is against international law, Clinton even noted that fact when he told Larry King he tried to have OBL killed but both times it failed.

[stresseater]

Clinton was not ignorant and naive he tried to tell Bush that OBL was a big threat but was ignored, Clinton even tried to have OBL killed twice, which btw is against international law, Clinton even noted that fact when he told Larry King he tried to have OBL killed but both times it failed.
Then shortly thereafter Clinton refused to take custody of this very dangerous man whom he tried to have killed? Or was that before he tried to have him killed?:confused:

[mesue]

Then shortly thereafter Clinton refused to take custody of this very dangerous man whom he tried to have killed? Or was that before he tried to have him killed?:confused:

The Clinton Administration did make their share of mistakes but they did not refuse an offer from Sudan for Bin Laden that was never an offer made. Now when I say bad things about Bush everyone say why do you hate that poor man so, I hope you are making the connection, its obvious you are not too fond of Clinton. Is it because you hate him or you hated his policies that is entirely two different things you know?

http://www.mediamonitors.net/espac1.html
The Clinton Administration brought pressure to bear on the Khartoum authorities to expel him from the Sudan. The Sudanese minister of information, Dr. Ghazi Saleheddin, revealed that:

"We gave [U.S. officials] a piece of advice that they never followed. We told them: 'Don't send him out of Sudan because you will lose control over him...Now, the United States has ended up with war with an invisible enemy' ".(17)

In May 1996, at the insistence of the United States, Sudan expelled bin Laden and over one hundred of his followers and their dependants. They chose to leave for Afghanistan, perhaps the single most difficult place in the world from which to monitor bin Laden and his activities. The results of this relocation are sadly all too well known. While in Sudan he did not engage in any terrorist activities. It was comparatively easy for the Sudanese and American authorities to monitor his activities, and, in the case of the Sudanese authorities probably to exercise a moderating influence of sorts

[mesue]

JCshopper Here is an article you might be interested apparently there are reports that the border patrol in Arizonia has been told to stand down. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm

[JCshopper]

Clinton also had the perfect opportunity, according to the people who worked for him, to kill or capture Osama, but was too busy golfing and socializing to respond. His people tried for hours to get him to give the order, but he could not be so bothered. If he believed Osama to be such a threat, why could he not respond then?

As far as the imigration thing goes... it completely disgusts me. Why aren't the average, normal, everyday citizens in this country screaming? Are people simply affraid they'll be called racists or what. I cannot comprehend why this is being allowed to happen. An average of 1.2 million illegal aliens enter this country every year. How many of them find a way to work the system to get social services? When they go to the E.R., who foots the bill? They are taking jobs for less money than the average American would, driving down wages. Between the taxes we pay to cover their healthcare and welfare and the wages being lost, they are draining our society. I stand by what I said before, if they are here illegally, round them up and send them home!

[mesue]

I think Clinton was courted in a sense by the Saudi's a lot of this mess we are in right now is due to them, we have built our foreign policy around protecting Saudi interests and the Isreali interests. The Bush family has been friends with the Saudi' royalty and Bin Laden's for years, as a matter of fact our current president got his first business started with money from Osama Bin Laden's brother.

As for the border control issue people will get upset about it when it affects them and the only way they are going to do that is with more info do you really think they are going to get that info from corporate owned media. Currently all the mainstream media you read or see is controlled by six corporation many of whom also own businesses making a lot of money off of this war. You might want to check out this station if you can't get it in your area you can watch some of their news programs on your computer or read tanscrips if you would rather. They get no sponsors so no corporate money also no commercials also they get no money or funding from the government, right now they are having a fund raising drive but that will be over soon its in between their programming and they have programmming you will not see anywhere else.

http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/fscm2/genx.php?name=home

[JCshopper]

I think that you're incorrect in assuming the information isn't out there; it is. I think most people are so caught up in their day to day that they miss what's going on right under their noses. I also think a lot of people just don't think there is anything they can do to change things, but I believe if enough people started yelling changes would be made. And then you have people who are just plain stupid and never stop to think about the ramifications. Yes, some of my ancestors were immigrants too, but they came in legally. They became citizens of this country, fought in our wars, defended our country, and contributed positively to our society and way of life. They lived honest lives and were proud to be called Americans. They worked hard to learn our language because they wanted to share and be a part of their new communities, while still maintaining their traditions and values. I believe, anyone who wants to live here should share these kind of values

[mesue]

I think that you're incorrect in assuming the information isn't out there; it is. I think most people are so caught up in their day to day that they miss what's going on right under their noses. I also think a lot of people just don't think there is anything they can do to change things, but I believe if enough people started yelling changes would be made. And then you have people who are just plain stupid and never stop to think about the ramifications. Yes, some of my ancestors were immigrants too, but they came in legally. They became citizens of this country, fought in our wars, defended our country, and contributed positively to our society and way of life. They lived honest lives and were proud to be called Americans. They worked hard to learn our language because they wanted to share and be a part of their new communities, while still maintaining their traditions and values. I believe, anyone who wants to live here should share these kind of values


What makes you so sure I am incorrect on the major news outlets, have you ever compared or looked at any alternative news sources? Perhaps you should think about doing so.
I am not assuming anything it is a fact that 6 corporations own your major news outlets it is a fact that many of these corporations own businesses that are making a lot of money off of this war. Something else you might want to think about is that in one hours of news watching the average consumer sees 35 minutes of commercial and 25 minutes of news, of that 25 minutes right now you are pobably seeing 10 minutes devoted to Michael Jackson's trial. also you are also getting what are called VNR or vide news relaeases, they are little ads basically but presented to you as news, their free to the news channels and are sometimes used and that includes your local channels. Also your news is not only slanted toward only one point of view it is sometimes watered down to where you only get part of the story not to mention that several pundits have been paid to promote certain agendas without telling you their being paid to do so. Read the details below, let me know if you can't access the link and I will post the whole thing here for you to read.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/11/1446234&mode=thread&tid=25

Conservative pundit Armstrong Williams admits to taking almost a quarter of a million dollars from the U.S. government to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation and the GAO scolds the Bush administration for the second time for using prepackaged video news releases the media runs as news. [includes rush transcript]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/14/152202&mode=thread&tid=25

According to a major expose in The New York Times, federal agencies under the Bush administration - from the State Department to Agriculture to the Transportation Security Administration - have been producing hundreds of pre-packaged TV segments that have been broadcast on local stations as real news. We speak with John Stauber of PR Watch, which has been tracking the rise of government and corporate-produced news for years. [includes rush transcript]

[JCshopper]

If you look again, I said nothing of the major news outlets... I said the information is out there.

[mesue]

Yes you did but my point is that we are not going to be given correct info or the full story without searching for it and if we can't depend on our own press to tell us the truth it is clear someone is manipulating our news. And in a free society that is totally wrong. Our first line of defense is always knowledge I grew up believing that propaganda was something that happened in Russia not here.

[JCshopper]

I suppose that all depends on what you view as propaganda. People are not perfect and there are very few that do not impose their own views on the stories they write or tell. When you're dealing with politics, you almost never get a story without some sort of slant. As the reader you tend to read into it what you like also. That's what makes it impossible to ever get a story straight. Try to remember in your own life: two people can be involved in the exact same event and come out of it giving completely different accounts....it all depends on perspective. I'm glad you have your own view and you try to educate yourself by refusing to believe all that is presented to you on a platter and instead do your own research. That is commendable. That is the best any of us can do. Just recall that everyone presents a story from another angle, biased by their own attitudes. By the way, I do believe some of the reporters in the mainstream media are very good and reliable. A few... not many.

[mesue]

I have never seen anyone fight so hard to believe the lie. Now let me get this straight what exactly is your definition of propaganda , two different stories or maybe three or even four they reflect a different point of view. Here is a definition of propaganda,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

When your government takes your tax dollars and pays a pundit Armstrong Williams to promote the, No Child Left Behind, Bush's Administrations agenda then that is propaganda, they paid two other pundits as well to promote different agendas, and not one of them told you they were paid to promote that agenda to you, that is propaganda. When a news program presents a government made VNR to you and does not tell you that is what you are seeing and lets you believe it is news then that is propaganda. When a news network presents a story and only tells you the part that promotes their corporate owners agenda, then that is propaganda.

[JCshopper]

As a matter of fact, I did not even read the article that you were refering to. I never saw the reports or commercials you are refering to. If in fact it is as you say propaganda, then no it should not be used or accepted. That being said, it should apply across the board. Both sides are guilty of the same offense. Give me a perfect politician to vote for and I most assuredly will. If the dems haven't taken the hint yet, they should closely examine who they offer up next time. Hillary, Howard Dean, and neither of the Johns are "gonna" cut it. I can't imagine who the republicans are going to offer that I'd want to vote for, but anybody else on the ballot would be better than that lot.

[mesue]

Read the articles I posted, its very clear and it is not about whether the democrats or the republicans used it they all probably have but my point is when you can't even trust your own govenment to tell you the truth, your own media the so called free press then its time to start searching alternative media and also time to start wondering why they the government is trying to lie to you and why it is neccessary for them to do so, what are they hiding?

[Jolie Rouge]

man ... I miss Sue :cry