Former CIA Agent Says Bush to Blame for 9/11; Possible Staged Terror Attack Before Election

Former CIA Agent Says Bush to Blame for 9/11; Possible Staged Terror Attack Before Election

"There might be a real or staged terrorist attack in order to postpone the elections," McGovern said. "This might seem outlandish; I hope it is." --

-"I have initials for why I think we went to war in Iraq," McGovern said. "O.I.L. O-I-L, O is for oil, I is for Israel and L is for logistics, as in when we have Iraq we have a foothold and a number of bases strategically placed in the Middle East so we can be in control over there and also to protect Israel."

www.propagandamatrix.com...

"I used to say when I was a kid growing up when someone told me not to do something, 'It's a free country,'" McGovern said. "I ask you to think about it now."

Interesting none of the major media picked it up.

Thats why he just sat there in the grade school classroom when briefed on the news of 911. He knew what was going down, that is why he had no immediate reaction.

this was covered a few times here. someone even claims that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al were responsible not only for 9/11 but for the 93 bombing too. Somehow they managed to take control of the fbi and pull off a bombing without the current administration knowing about it.

I don't buy it.

I don't know about a staged attack but the only people that believe Bush and the Neo-Cons weren't looking for a reason to attack Iraq before 9/11 even are either blind supporters or truly uninformed.

His manipulation of 9/11 to justify taking Saddam out is the biggest piece of evidence in support of this.

If Al Qaida did it, why have there been no trials for anyone related to 9/11?

Why weren't the individuals who profited from put options on stocks from undisputed pre-knowledge of the attacks ever investigated?

Why is it a confirmed fact that Pakistani ISI Chief Gen. Ahmud wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, yet he was in the US on 9/11?

If 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and since it's known that Al-Qaida and Iraq are enemies, why was Iraq invaded?

Why did a team of Israelis tape the WTC bombing, then brag on Israeli radio that "we were there to document the event?"

Why did Rumsfeld try to get an invasion of Iraq underway immediately after 9/11, according to Richard Clarke?

Why in God's name did hijacked flights fly for 90 minutes without a fighter intercept? Does the fact that Operation Northwoods, plus other NORAD hijacking exercises, were all happening on 9/11?

Why did the National Security Advisor say "We never imagined anyone could turn planes into missiles," when that's been on the minds of anyone who's ever read a Tom Clancy novel, and in 1993 a Cessna nearly crashed into the White House?

Too many HUGE questions remain.

Just what i've been saying all along. Seems former CIA agent saw Farengheit 911? Or could Michael Moore have been reporting the TRUTH?

As sure as im sitting here posting, i will bet you that there will be a huge terrorist attack just before elections (unless things look incredibly good for Bush).
Can some of you still say this isnt so? How?????

Originally posted by dgtempe
Just what i've been saying all along. Seems former CIA agent saw Farengheit 911? Or could Michael Moore have been reporting the TRUTH?

As sure as im sitting here posting, i will bet you that there will be a huge terrorist attack just before elections (unless things look incredibly good for Bush).
Can some of you still say this isnt so? How?????

No one can say its so or not. Know one knows. This is a story from one person without proof as usual. A lot of people don't believe Kennedy was shot by Oswald either but there isn't any smoking gun yet that states otherwise.

Its all conjecture outside of real proof.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
"I used to say when I was a kid growing up when someone told me not to do something, 'It's a free country,'" McGovern said. "I ask you to think about it now."

With sentiments like this, why do we have a Judicial System? 'I robbed and killed that guy because it's a free country.'

The liberals are right. They're right. I give the hell up! America doesn't have any reason at all to be anywhere else in the world. Let's MAKE ALL AMERICANS come back home, and the liberals can take care of us, hand and foot, because we're little children.

And when we rob a store or kill an old lady, we'll go to the liberal ACLU and plead our case. We'll be off the hook, because it's a free country. We are at liberty to do anything that we want to, right or wrong, because it's our right and it's a FREE COUNTRY!

Man, what's wrong with you all!


[edit on 24/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by Weller
I don't know about a staged attack but the only people that believe Bush and the Neo-Cons weren't looking for a reason to attack Iraq before 9/11 even are either blind supporters or truly uninformed.

His manipulation of 9/11 to justify taking Saddam out is the biggest piece of evidence in support of this.

Of course they had plans for Iraq... go back to the 1999/2000 debates. Enforcing the UN sanctions was part of the republican/bush platform. In fact nearly 50% of all voters agreed with that plan and voted such. Iraq was always going to be attacked (assuming Saddam didn't change his tune). The fact that they used 9/11 to bolster that action is not surprising or all that out of line. The mis-intelligence about WMD (and using that as a reason) are disturbing and were not necessary.

9/11 wasn't needed to attack Iraq in anyway, we already had plenty of reasons to do that.
It was needed to attack Afghanistan (we had justification for attacking terror camps... but not the country en masse), thats where I'd focus my conspiracy efforts.

There was nothing in this article that made me say 'wow, Bush knew!' or even 'hmmm, maybe Bush could have possibly in a round about way had one little inkling that something was going down'. He makes indirect accusations but doesn't say what he is basing them on. And if he had proof of any of his accusations he would have provided it. Just kind of makes me shrug and blow it off as another Michael Moore with an agenda.

Jemison

Originally posted by Jemison
There was nothing in this article that made me say 'wow, Bush knew!' or even 'hmmm, maybe Bush could have possibly in a round about way had one little inkling that something was going down'. He makes indirect accusations but doesn't say what he is basing them on. And if he had proof of any of his accusations he would have provided it. Just kind of makes me shrug and blow it off as another Michael Moore with an agenda.

Jemison

Unfortunately, this is how the right views any news giving light to 911.

Originally posted by havanas

Originally posted by Weller
I don't know about a staged attack but the only people that believe Bush and the Neo-Cons weren't looking for a reason to attack Iraq before 9/11 even are either blind supporters or truly uninformed.

His manipulation of 9/11 to justify taking Saddam out is the biggest piece of evidence in support of this.

Of course they had plans for Iraq... go back to the 1999/2000 debates. Enforcing the UN sanctions was part of the republican/bush platform. In fact nearly 50% of all voters agreed with that plan and voted such. Iraq was always going to be attacked (assuming Saddam didn't change his tune). The fact that they used 9/11 to bolster that action is not surprising or all that out of line. The mis-intelligence about WMD (and using that as a reason) are disturbing and were not necessary.

9/11 wasn't needed to attack Iraq in anyway, we already had plenty of reasons to do that.
It was needed to attack Afghanistan (we had justification for attacking terror camps... but not the country en masse), thats where I'd focus my conspiracy efforts.

Enforcing UN resolutions yes, not invading Iraq. Two different things. And since we flaunted the UN in the end anyways, I don't think we have much room to use that as justification.

The UN resolutions were for increased sanctions against Iraq and force if necessary. Clearly, now that we have been proven wrong on all of our pre-war justifications it shows that we didn't exactly live up to what the people wanted. They may pooh pooh that statement now but only because Iraqi freedom is the only thing they can claim is keeping us from looking like total fools.

I don't think anyone in 2000 wanted a war without support from the rest of the world. Few wanted what we have now, even many Republicans.

Personally in my opinion bush is to blame..... just my opinion...

Its all conjecture outside of real proof.

of course its conjecture, when all of the proof that has been presented to you has been manufactured by the powers that be.

how come they claim the buildings collapsed from fire? when in fact steel burns at 2700 degrees, and jet fuel burns at 2300 degrees for a breif time while supplied with ample oxegen. note most of the fuel went up in that huge fire ball that exploded outside of the building, and the fire inside was very ineficient because of the lack of oxegen.

it is also said that a normal collaspe of the building would not cause the pulverazation of the concrete and materials that was strewn about the ground site. the only way to mix the molecular structure so signifigantly would be with a powerful and extremely hot blast ( c-4 )

a controlled demolition is the only logical explanation, the ground debris of the WTC was smoldering for many days after they collapsed. very hot tempuratures were messured at the ground reckage, what caused these extremely hot tempuratures, and the ability to burn for days?

also, the pancake collapse witnessed by all of us is confusing, since the hole in the towers were diagonal, the collapse should have been off center, but no they fell perfectly straight down.

this is just the tip of the iceberg people. there is so much more damning evidence as far as motive, cooperate agenda, and 3 letter agencys. there is no doubt in my mind this attack is the work of the illuminati, in an effort to gain a more firm choke hold on we the people.

PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION



[edit on 25-9-2004 by sturod84]

I have just began researching the "Bush knew about 9/11" theroies. And this information is very helpful. Now my input is that, Yes, there will be a terror attack before the elections to help Bush win. I am not sure why I think this, but it is just this odd feeling I have

every one keeps blaming bush even for 9/11 just stop and think, could isreal be involved as well, along with australia and england.
this seems to me to be more and more like a very carefully planned event and not just by osama and his band of loonies.
one thing i did see the other day that blew my mind is that since the fall of the taliban that farmers are starting to harvest large amounts of opium for the heroin trade. this practice was banned under taliban rule. at $1,000,000 kg for pure heroin who needs oil?

Originally posted by Intelearthling
With sentiments like this, why do we have a Judicial System? 'I robbed and killed that guy because it's a free country.'

And when we rob a store or kill an old lady, we'll go to the liberal ACLU and plead our case. We'll be off the hook, because it's a free country. We are at liberty to do anything that we want to, right or wrong, because it's our right and it's a FREE COUNTRY!

Man, what's wrong with you all!


[edit on 24/9/04 by Intelearthling]

I seen you post before, and I lose respect for you each time, this post just drops it even further. Don�t compare a obvious crime where it effects others peoples lives instead of a minor parental rule that may have been set because of religious beliefs. The only thing wrong here is the example you have given with robbing and killing, in trying to say its a given right in America.

[edit on 9/25/2004 by WhiteWolf420]

When I used Kazza to download what I thought was 911 the movie I ended up with a lecture from a former LA cop who claimed he was run out of the force for refusal by the CIA to help sell drugs on the streets. Basically his premise for Afghanistan was the poppie trade. Under the talaban it was stopped, this made a huge dent in the floating of the US economy by the CIA. Basically the theory is that the CIA orchestrated 911 and Afghanistan to help keep the US economy as well as the world economy from collapsing. The futures of airline stocks that unnamed groups made huge amounts off of are also speculation in this theory. Is it all true I have no idea. However truth can tend to be stranger than fiction.

The documentary I watched gave a better more expanded M.O. for 911 than just the oil as Michael Moore stated.

Oil, drug money, futures in the stock market

[edit on 25-9-2004 by IntelRetard]

I ended up with a lecture from a former LA cop who claimed he was run out of the force for refusal by the CIA to help sell drugs on the streets. .

here is a spin for you intel it's a bit off the topic but here goes.


Cabbarramatta an outer suberb of sydney was once a place you could take the family on the weekend to enjoy the open air markets and buy exotic fabric and foods not available elsewhere in sydney. It was also known that small amounts of high grade heroin were obtainable if you knew the right people. (a vietnamese community)
After the anouncement in 1992 that sydney would host the 2000 olympic games the herroin trade started to increase.
now to cut this topic a bit shorter i will jump to 97/98 by this time sydney was in the grip of a major herroin epidemic. I kid you not if you were to catch a train out to cabbarramatta when you steped of the train there would be 6/10 pepole hanging over the overpass yelling at you "HEY BUDDY HEY BUDDY HOW MANY YOU WANT" referring to the $30AUS herroin deals they had in their mouths. Now if that doesn't sound bad enough as you walked out of the station there would be the same amount if not more people running across the main road yelling the same thing.
Now once you got past these guys just about every male person you walked past would give you a nod as if to spruke for a sale.
By this time cameras were installed all over the business district and the amount of police patrolling the streets was rediculas and the dealing went on in plain veiw.
Now the closer the games got the cheaper the drugs got. look at this.
herroin is usually $400-$500AUS per gram and you could buy a single dose for $30AUS just before the games the price dropped to around $250 per gram any you could pick up a single dose for as little as $10-$15AUS.
A few months before the games police were given special powers to arrest any one who didn't have i.d. to prove they lived in the area or have a legitamate reason for being there. these pepole were quite often charged and convicted of conspiracy to puchase an illeagal substance.(police still have the same powers today) presto problem fixed along with a well documented herroin drought of 2000 where street addicts were resorting to ingecting morphine sulphate and a whole lot of other synthetic opiates that weren't meant for that purpose.
now melbourne is about to host the commonweath games in 2006 and what do we find melbourne is having the exact problem, I must add that melbourne didn't need the same amount of money sydney did so the problem hasn't been as bad it hasn't dragged out for 8 years like sydney
it's only been the past 12/18 months for melbourne but watch it magically dissapear just before the games hit melbourne.
the austrailian government sells herroin. to fund these two events

[edit on 25-9-2004 by unhingedmullet]