The money trail points to, among others, the #3 guy in CIA....
www.copvcia.com
-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 15, 2001
Answers
Doc Paulie, call your office
-- (NWO@alert.alert), October 15, 2001.
www.skolnicksreport.com/pkem.html
-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 15, 2001.
hey KoFe!!You have exactly six ( 6 ) months to prepare for the
next tax season!
-- we_KNOW_you (IRS@watching.you.com), October 15, 2001.
SUPPRESED DETAILS OF CRIMINAL INSIDER TRADING LEAD DIRECTLY INTO THE
CIA’s HIGHEST RANKS
CIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR “BUZZY” KRONGARD MANAGED FIRM THAT
HANDLED “PUT” OPTIONS ON UAL
by
Michael C. Ruppert
[© COPYRIGHT, 2001, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications,
www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. – May be reprinted or
distributed for non-profit purposes only.]
FTW, October 9, 2001 – Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream
U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of
transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal)
foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades --
which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to
place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998,
managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director
position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. “Buzzy”
Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B.
Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became,
as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one
of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being
connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s
Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations.” In this
capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest
people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that
has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as
being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director
George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President
Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999.
The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we
shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected
to the September 11 attacks.
THE SCOPE OF KNOWN INSIDER TRADING
Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to
look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by
Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well
documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades – in real
time – as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic
moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have
specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such
trades.
It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to
understand the significance of these trades, “selling short” and “put
options”.
“Selling Short” is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current
market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock
for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short
contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by
buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract
at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as
long as four months.
“Put Options,” are contracts giving the buyer the option to sell
stocks at a later date. Purchased at nominal prices of, for example,
$1.00 per share, they are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised,
they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a
future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an
investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of
United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the
option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If
the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of
the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them
for $100 – regardless of where the market then stands. A call option
is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives
bet that the stock price will go up.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy
Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled “Black Tuesday: The World’s
Largest Insider Trading Scam?” documented the following trades
connected to the September 11 attacks:
- Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options
Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but
only 396 call options… Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought
by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks,
these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million.
- On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were
bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again,
there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;… Again,
assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders,”
they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
- [The levels of put options purchased above were more than
six times higher than normal.]
- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago
exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors
of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options
bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares
to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan
Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of
the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were
bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their
purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
- Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World
Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four
trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those
shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When
trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50;
assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by “insiders,”
their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
- European regulators are examining trades in Germany’s Munich
Re, Switzerland’s Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers
with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns
more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a “double
whammy” for them.]
On September 29, 2001 – in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by
the major media – the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Investors
have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made
trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11,
terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and
market data.
“The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors – whose
identities and nationalities have not been made public – had advance
knowledge of the strikes.” They don’t dare show up now. The
suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it
impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before
investigators started looking.
“… October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly
unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a
total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each
representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000
shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There
are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77
million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options
Clearinghouse Corp.”
“…The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank
Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant
Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some
of these options…” This was the operation managed by Krongard until
as recently as 1998.
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of
insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the
attacks.
CIA, THE BANKS AND THE BROKERS
Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and
brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening
implications of the above revelations. Let’s look at the history of
CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key
players in CIA’s history.
Clark Clifford – The National Security Act of 1947 was written by
Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of
Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the
1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was
instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to
operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and
banker.
John Foster and Allen Dulles – These two brothers “designed” the CIA
for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW
II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met
frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in
Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under
Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under
Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in
the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan,
Cromwell.
Bill Casey – Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director and OSS veteran who served
as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President
Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.
David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock
Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the
Central Intelligence Agency.
George Herbert Walker Bush – President from 1989 to January 1993,
also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a
paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense
contractor in the nation, which also shares joint investments with
the bin Laden family.
A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard – The current Executive Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank
A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust.
John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton
Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation’s
second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved
in the documented laundering of drug money. This includes Citigroup’s
2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.
Nora Slatkin – This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on
Citibank’s board.
Maurice “Hank” Greenburg – The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the
third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a
possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg’s and AIG’s long
connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-
part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of
September 11. AIG’s stock has bounced back remarkably well since the
attacks. To read that story, please go to
http://www.copvcia.com/stories/part_2.html.
One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to
what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did
not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is
doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people,
especially those who died on September 11.
end
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 15, 2001.
So some of the suspicious trades were placed through (surprise) one
of the largest brokerage houses in the world. The current #3 man at
the CIA used to be Chairman of a smallish brokerage firm that was
(surprise) bought by Banker's Trust during a time of much
consolidation in the financial industry. After he left the
company for the CIA, the company was again (surprise) part of a
merger, being acquired by Deutsche Bank.
All of these facts
are true. However, they don't even come close to supporting the
idiotic claim that there, "...is now irrefutable proof that
CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them".
Let me give
an equally plausible (read: implausable) argument.
After Bill
Clinton's terms at the White House, Hillary Clinton moved to New
York to run for the Senate from that state. Two of the three
buildings that were attacked on September 11th were in New York
!!! Therefore, "one wonders how much damning (ha ha) evidence is
necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable (ha ha ha) proof that
Hillary Clinton knew about the attacks and did not stop them"?
The truly sad part about this is that the mainstream media
uses this same tactic, of drawing conclusions that are nowhere near
being supported by evidence, all of the time. Sadder yet, is that a
great portion of the American public doesn't have the logical
thinking skills to see through this propaganda.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 15, 2001.
Is there anything more pathetic than some conspiracy moron
breathlessly bleating: "Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream
U.S. media"....
Only the usual dullards would believe this nonsense...
-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), October 15, 2001.
This is proof that anyone can create a conspiracy theory out of whole
cloth and staples, if he/she looks hard enough and selectively spins
the evidence to fit that foreordained conclusion.
(Interesting that he didn't bother to check for sell-off in other
industries -- such as insurance; the fact is, they stood to lose a
WHOLE lot more than the airlines.)
The airline industry has been in financial trouble for some time.
Several months before Sept 11, Midway Airlines filed for bankruptcy;
that sent shockwaves through the industry (because Midway had been
considered a "model" airline by many).
The majors had been struggling for some time before Sept 11 as well.
Talk of layoffs and declining profits (ex: American announced about
the same time as Midway's failure that it had lost money in the
previous quarter -- again) were taking their toll.
Perhaps the most poignant and ironic proof of this fact is that the
planes that the terrorists hijacked on September 11th weren't filled
anywhere close to capacity (thankfully, or the death toll would have
been fractionally higher).
They were filled with empty seats. The airlines were losing money on
those flights before they even took off.
This guy DELIBERATELY distorts the facts to reach his twisted
conclusion. Puts and sell-shorts are common when an industry gets into
trouble.
And again, the fact is, the airline industry was in trouble long
before Sept 11. The *reason* for the government-proposed bailout was
because the WTC attack threatened to kill the holiday travel season
(in which most airlines hope to make up the losses sustained over the
summer).
-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 15, 2001.
You boys are jumping to conclusions again. Lets wait and see who claims the money first....
-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 15, 2001.
KoFE--
What do you think the CIA and collaborators will do for an encore?
-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 15, 2001.
Lars,
Black helicopters dropping mind-control chemicals, of course, followed
by the final enslavement of the Sheeple.
-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 15, 2001.
Lars, if this is the way it went down, there is nothing else to do. The dupes will provide enough action.
You would like for me to say I know this to be a fact, when of course no one can.......what I suggesting is to stop blindly endorsing every flim flam as if these guys are saints.
Why is it that anyone who is ranked above town councilman is beyond suspicion? What's up with that?
Judges Conviction Prompts Death Row Inmates" Reprieve
San Francisco- A federal appeals court set aside an Arizone death row inmates sentence, ruling that condemned murderer Warren Summerlin is entitled to hearings on whether the marijuana addiction of the judge who oversaw his trial tainted the outcome.
The decision could effect hundreds of criminal cases tried before Maricopa County Judge Philip Marquart, who was thrown off the bench for a marijuana conviction after a 20 year career.
Summerlin was found guilty of first degree murder in the 1981 slaying of Brena Baily, 36. He was sentenced to death for murder and to 28 years in prison for sexual assault.
A divided three judge panel said the condemned man is entitled to hearings on whether Marquart was high on marijuana when he decided to have Summerlin executed.
-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 15, 2001.
Black Tuesday:The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?
No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange
in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
This is very much a developing story, and we can be sure that more --
and more accurate -- numbers will emerge soon. Investigators will be
examining transactions starting with the few days immediately before
the attack, and then working backwards; and similarly, they will be
looking first at trades in the most obviously affected securities.
Bull, what this is, is a story which is now being buried
completely. We even see three jokers on this very thread(J, Stephen
Poole, and Y2k Pro) doing some FREE bs-spreading for the crooks. The
above debunks the idiotic bs of Poole. The other two boobs didn't say
much of anything and can be safely ignored as the asswipes they are.
Link to one of the visible
companies working with the CIA
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 16, 2001.
off
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 16, 2001.
UAL Buying Luxury Jets Amid Job Cuts
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 16, 2001.
Stephen Poole: And again, the fact is, the airline industry was in
trouble long before Sept 11. The *reason* for the government-proposed
bailout was because the WTC attack threatened to kill the holiday
travel season (in which most airlines hope to make up the losses
sustained over the summer).
Got documentation? sources? where do you get your information?
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 16, 2001.
"The other two boobs didn't say much of anything and can be safely
ignored..."
Translation: "What J said was factual and logical,
but I don't like it, so I will call him names".
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 16, 2001.
No what you said is correct. You went where all nuts however go with
your Clinton analogy. Thus you sir are an asswipe.
Now do you care to address the information provided or do you want us
all to further know about your small dick problem?
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 16, 2001.
All of these facts are true. However, they don't even come close to
supporting the idiotic claim that there, "...is now irrefutable proof
that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them". Correct
Let me give an equally plausible (read: implausable) argument.
After Bill Clinton's terms at the White House, Hillary Clinton moved
to New York to run for the Senate from that state. Two of the three
buildings that were attacked on September 11th were in New York !!!
Therefore, "one wonders how much damning (ha ha) evidence is
necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable (ha ha ha) proof that
Hillary Clinton knew about the attacks and did not stop them"?
Ridiculous and not even a very good analogy. It ignores the fact
Krongard is the #3 man at the CIA for the very reason he understands
how the Financial Markets are juiced.
The truly sad part about this is that the mainstream media uses this
same tactic, of drawing conclusions that are nowhere near being
supported by evidence, all of the time. Sadder yet, is that a great
portion of the American public doesn't have the logical thinking
skills to see through this propaganda. Course the public does not
want to read about mysterious financial goings-on and prefers to be
told there really is not anything to "follow the money trail" and
thus is the reason the MEDIA is not reporting this. Believe that and
one is truly a "dullard".
The Propaganda is that there is nothing to this story--NOW. Initially
the paper trail was reported and cited by the Bush Administration
across the Media. NOW it is the work of conspiracy kooks.
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 16, 2001.
Black helicopters dropping mind-control chemicals, of course,
followed by the final enslavement of the Sheeple.
-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 15, 2001.
Translated this means Bin Laden, Anthrax and John Ashcroft.
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 16, 2001.
Doc,
You said, "Krongard is the #3 man at the CIA for the very
reason he understands how Financial Markets are juiced".
That
is another perfect example of a conclusion drawn on nonexistent
evidence.
Look, I believe that Poole is wrong. I believe that
there was trading done with foreknowledge of the events that
occurred on September 11th. I just am not buying that because some
of the trades went through a (very large) firm where Buzzy
Krongard used to work, that the CIA knew what was going
to happen. The evidence, if you can call it that, doesn't support
such a conclusion.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 16, 2001.
"That is another perfect example of a conclusion drawn on
nonexistent evidence."
Evidence? When did a crackpot ever need evidence to justify their
belief? During Y2K we were exposed to a series of nutcases here that
believed in an astonishing array of goofiness, including:
white U.N. trucks;
concentration camps for "gi's";
Russian soldiers in Texas;
poison contrails;
flying saucer attacks;
The gubmint monitoring "gi's":
...and a whole host of other nonsense that I have (thankfully)
forgotten.
Having a rational argument with these dimbulbs who
believe in nonsensical conspiracy theories is a waste of time...
-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.
Only problem with your argument Y2k Pro is the fact much of this
issue IS REAL.
Seriously, would YOU have given any attention to someone whining that
a Florida Aircraft School was training a "suspected" guy with ties to
Bin Laden a year ago? Few others did either. Even folks who are paid
big money 24/7 didn't bother(or so the PTB say).
Look back in history, many of the issues now in the news have been
talked about on these boards for years. Most of this time folks like
yourself have made fun of it as the rantings of looney tunes. Rightly
so, some of it was moronic. However some of it NOW is as real as it
was for anyone then.
ANTHRAX to the tune of one dead and a dozen infected. Would you have
given anyone an ear six months ago if they had suggested anthrax
would be delivered by the USPS to the office of Tom Brokaw?
Six months ago would you have believed someone suggesting terrorists
could fly two commercial jets into the WTC Complex in NYC, bring the
whole thing down and kill 5,000 Americans? That similar nuts would be
able to fly a plane into the Pentagon? Would you have listened?
I think you need to wake up dude. Realize all bets are off.
Understand you are being lied to by this Media something horrorific.
You need to understand LIFE AS WE KNEW IT IS OVER! It is NEVER going
to be the same again. Sure we all try and go thru the motions, but we
all know the other shoe hasn't dropped yet and may never. The way it
is NOW, probably is it.
Defend old reality Y2k Pro. Be a stuck-in-the-mud unwilling to face
TODAY. Lump flying saucer people in with those who do not believe a
passport from a Terrorist able leap tall buildings and fly three city
blocks thru an inferno a major stretch, go ahead.
Bash the average American who is fed propaganda, distortion and
outright omission 24/7. Attack them for filling-in-the-blanks. Attack
them for making wild speculations bashed on the bs the media is
spewing. Maybe someday you will understand it is not your neighbors
who are to blame.
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 16, 2001.
The gubmint monitoring "gi's":
This is by far the best one. I have not stopped looking over my
shoulder since September 11, 2001, HOW ABOUT YOU?
Raising a stink in this country is signing one's death sentence
(suicide excuse me).
Anyone want to question this notion NOW?
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 16, 2001.
and I agree with you J mostly. However does ANYONE, beyond 5 or 6 who
are not talking, know why Krongard is #3 at the CIA? I think
intelligent people can make educated guesses based on facts present.
Not only can, but have no other choice. Not ideal, but it is what is
and it is suggested one deal with it.
Based on what I see, Krongard is where he is because he has
experience and knowledge of REAL insider trading and money laundering.
He is a BANKER, what other possible value could he be to the CIA?
Does not mean he is in anyway part of some bigger conspiracy(based on
what we have available). It would be refreshing however, instead of
the usual burying of these stories, for him to come-out with facts
and documentation fingering the exact parties responsible. They
released the story and now are burying it. Do you WANT people now to
just play along? Is this an American trait now? being a sheep?
Is this about Krongard anyway? or is it about defending Bush and his
appointments?
Whatever it is about facts are facts and somebody knew prior, end of
story.
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 16, 2001.
Doc,
A more plausible answer to the question of why Buzzy
Krongard has been installed as the #3 man at the CIA is that he is a
long-time trusted friend and supporter of the Bush family.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 16, 2001.
Well J, That Buzzy is a Bush appointee WOULD make sense, wouldn't it?
-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 16, 2001.
KoFE,
A lot more sense than the CIA killing 6000+ Americans
for a few million dollars, yes.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 16, 2001.
"Only problem with your argument Y2k Pro is the fact much of this
issue IS REAL."
No one is denying that the issue is real, the rational amongst us are
all simply laughing at the leaps in logic it takes for you to get to
your conclusion. I think we all realize that everything has changed -
except that there are still crackpots amongst us who believe in every
ridiculous paranoid fantasy that comes down the pike.
That, unfortunately, has not changed...
-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), October 17, 2001.
J, I didn't say the CIA did it. How the hell would I know if they did? I'm suggesting that certain people deserve as much scutiny as anyone else. Why are they above suspicion?
You're trying (hard) to distort the article.
I'm saying, as I've said before, there are unscrupulous people in all walks of life. Take shillpoole for example. He tries to steer people to a site that basically is desinged to dose people with fear instead of informing them. He admits, on the other hand, that he knows the truth to be opposite that which he claims to other people. (shillpoole, make the link for everyone again so we can all see what a dick you are; and btw, do your morning zoo routine again, commodore)
Eventually, the truth will come out, and no thanks to suck -ups like poole and the prophylactic.
-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 17, 2001.
"Eventually, the truth will come out"
Yes, the "truth" will come out. And when it does, once again you
conspiracy retards will look like, well, yourselves...
-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), October 17, 2001.
KoFE,
No, you didn't say that the CIA did it, but Doc came out
and said that there was "irrefutable proof" that the CIA knew
beforehand and did nothing to stop it. Most of my posts on this
thread have been to take him to task for jumping to such an
outrageous conclusion based on the limited facts that were in the
article.
My first post on this thread that was directly to you
may have been a bit snippy, for I was still in argument mode with
Doc. For this, I apologize. I will stand by my assertion, however,
that it is far, far more likely that Buzzy Krongard is the #3 man at
the CIA because of his ties to the Bush family, than because the CIA
needed his stock market expertise to net a few million dollars
trading put options when they decided to use three jumbo jets to
completely destroy two buildings, and considerably damage a third,
all the while killing thousands of Americans in the
process.
In my mind, it just doesn't compute. I would think
that the drug trade would be a much easier and much more clandestine
way to net a few million dollars.
To summarize, yes, I believe
that the actions of the CIA and others should be scrutinized. If
nothing else, their past history dictates that. And I wasn't trying
to distort the article. It alluded to the CIA being involved in the
insider trading that went on prior to 9/11/01, and Doc quickly ran
with that insinuation and concluded that the CIA knew that the attack
was going to happen, did nothing to stop it, and furthermore,
profited from it. If anyone distorted the article, it was him, not
me.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 17, 2001.
EXAMINE EVERYTHING! Including my navel.
-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 17, 2001.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Rama
res-Faulkner101701/ramares-faulkner101701.html
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 18, 2001.
High trading volume of an instrument means at least one of two
things, a lot of people want in or a lot of people want out. Knowing
whether the time value of these puts (i.e., their premium over
intrinsic value) appreciated on September 6 and 7 would lend more
meaning to the fact of high volume.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 18, 2001.
WTFU, from your link---
FAULKNER: Good to have you. Do you
think the CIA had
advance knowledge of the attacks? Did
they know a specific
attack was coming?
RUPPERT: I am absolutely convinced
that the Central
Intelligence Agency had complete and
perfect foreknowledge of
the attacks, down to date, time place
and location, yes.
If you are personally convinced that "the CIA had complete and
perfect foreknowledge of the attacks, down to date, time, place and
location" then, as an American patriot, is it not your obligation to
immediately assassinate President Bush, the Director of the CIA and
other key conspirators?
Are you getting cracking on this? Why are you wasting your time on
this forum?
Phillip Agee, is he still around?
-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 18, 2001.
Doc,
Good night, man!
Try to read that gibberish with
an open mind. If you could, then you would see that it is nothing
more than innuendo and insinuation, all wrapped up in a very left
tilting agenda. The man in the interview proves exactly nothing
that he asserts. Not one thing.
Face it, the fact that
prominent Wall Street men have moved on to the CIA does not, not even
in the slightest, mean that the CIA knew what was going to happen on
9/11 because of some heavy put buying a few days ahead of the
event.
David L,
I think that you've been reading
too much on option pricing theory. In the real world, the
dramatic increase in volume says plenty, regardless of whether or not
the options' premiums increased. What it doesn't say, however, is
that the CIA knew what was going to happen on 9/11 because of that
increase in put volume. It doesn't even come remotely close to saying
that.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 19, 2001.
What it doesn't say, however, is that the CIA knew what was going
to happen on 9/11 because of that increase in put volume. It doesn't
even come remotely close to saying that.
May not have included the specifics, but this information was part of
a warning furnished by Israeli Intelligence to US Intelligence ahead
of 9-11-2001. This IS NOT even in dispute.
Go look-up Ramzi Ahmed Yousef if at some point you actually want to
open your eyeballs. I do not have the time to squabble over why
hotair from a axe-to-grind author speculating on a radio show is not
the same as grand jury testimony, NO KIDDING. If we have to explain
this upfront, we are wasting time.
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 19, 2001.
Doc,
Stay away from the windows, I heard the Black Helicopters will be by
you place today...giggle...
-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), October 19, 2001.
Doc,
Okay, here's your chance to shine. Show me proof
that the Mossad told the CIA pre 9/11 that the WTC towers were
going to be blown up via American Airlines and United Airlines jets
on 9/11. Show me proof that Promis software told the CIA the
exact date, the exact target, and the exact manner of attack that was
used because of a sizable jump in put option trading activity in the
days prior to 9/11.
Hint: that junk interview that you
linked to didn't prove anything. Some nutcase speculating on
what happened in his wildest conspiracy theory dreams is not proof.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 19, 2001.
Echelon Gave
Authorities Warning Of Attacks
Officials Told of 'Major Assault' Plans
U.S. Denies Report That Israel Warned of
Militants' Entry
The Road to Sept.
11
CIA
gets go-ahead for a return to murderous Cold War tactics
Was this a breakdown of Intelligence? Understand the CIA and others
have entire teams of people watching Bin Laden full time. How could
they all have missed this? Why do they deny reports others warned
them? Warnings with facts attached? There has been a contract out on
Bin Laden for YEARS! Why is this guy still breathing? Could it be
because he is valuable alive?
Is all of this just incompetency? I doubt it.
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 19, 2001.
BTW J, what was Jeb Bush doing on September 7, 2001?
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 19, 2001.
Here J, suck on these...EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER
01-261
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER
01-262
Meaningless, doesn't prove anything.
Here J a story from folks you actually read...http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/183057.shtml
Have a nice and profitable day! and like Y2k Pro suggests, watch-out
for them black helicopters as he does!
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 19, 2001.
Doc's conspiracy hypothesis breaks down in one fundamental way (as
they almost always do). In order for his Monty-Python like "theory"
to be true, many, many people have to be "in" on it - including his
fellow Americans.
Only a smgema-for-brains dullard like Doc (and of course the rest of
his friends at Olson-Land) would believe that a secret this
monumental could be kept. Methinks the anal-alien probe is affecting
your cognitive reasoning...
-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), October 19, 2001.
Doc,
Wow! You're really onto something here!
Gollee! Jeb Bush must have known *WAY* in advance about the attacks!
Look here! Bush signed another executive order (2001-17)
WAY BACK IN JANUARY THAT SAID ALMOST THE SAME EXACT THING!!!
( ... which, of course, you could easily have discovered if you'd even
bothered to try ... the new EO specifically states that it supercedes
this older one ... . .. .)
And while I'm at it, I will correct two other egregious errors from
you:
1. The CIA does *NOT* have Bin Ladin under constant observation,
because your boy Clinton emasculated the CIA's foreign
intelligence-gather capabilities. In fact, Bush is trying desperately
to *REBUILD* the CIA so that we WILL be able to put people like him
under "constant observation."
2. You never even noticed my point above about insurance companies,
did you? If someone was going to make tons of money off the Sept 11
attacks, there were MUCH better (and much surer) opportunities than
airline companies. Insurance is just one example.
Why do I even bother with you anymore? You've lost it. It's a darned
shame, too.
You're smarter than this, Doc.
Let me repeat that: YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THIS. Get your mind right.
Sheesh.
-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 19, 2001.
Stephen--
Batten down the hatches. Be prepared for a belicose reply.
-- (lars@indy.net), October 19, 2001.
Doc the forum drunkard hiding behind the fuck handle how fitting
*snicker*
-- (the@dog.loungingonthe couch), October 19, 2001.
J, I take strong exception to your remark. I haven't read anything on
option pricing theory. 8^)
It's easy (and not unreasonable) to attach significance to the put
volume if one views it in a larger context. But perhaps you're saying
that because of an option's disproportionate upside potential, a put
volume that dwarfs call volume is much more likely to suggest eager
put buyers than desperate put sellers, and vice versa.
If that is what you're saying, I think you have a valid point.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 19, 2001.
Y2K Pro,
From what I have seen, the harassment that whistleblowers endure, far
exceeds the little influence they have. They are stonewalled, fired,
blackballed, threatened and slandered, if not worse. For all this,
they are lucky to get a few column inches on Page E-13.
So I'm not sure what incentive someone would have, to try to reveal
such a "monumental secret." And if they did, it's not clear what
evidence they could present that would withstand the predictable
onslaught of denials and cross accusations.
-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 19, 2001.
Lars,
The Psychobabblists say that you go through "DADA" after a tragedy --
Denial, Anger, Depression, and finally, Acceptance.
Doc seems to be going through dAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAda.
-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 19, 2001.
One can only hope the depression arrives soon. There is medication for
that.
-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 20, 2001.
Doc,
Five links, and not a shred of proof. In fact, one of
your links actually refutes your point. When will you learn that
people babbling on and on about that which they think happened, or
that which they think might have happened, is not proof?
It's just a bunch of bs, but evidently a type of bs which is
aromatic to you, because it says that which you want so badly to be
true. All of the world's problems can't be blamed on big business and
the CIA, no matter how much you believe that they can. Some of the
problems, certainly. But not all of the problems,
Doc.
David L,
No, that's not exactly what I was
saying, but since you have brought it up, I will comment. Most put
(and call) buying is done by people other than the professionals in
the pits. Rarely do investors/speculators sell calls (they instead
buy puts), and rarely do they sell puts (they instead buy
calls). So you are correct in saying that a jump in put volume
implies an eager put buyer, and not an eager put
seller.
What I was saying, specifically, is that
premiums need not move at all for a dramatic increase in volume to
still tell much. Your first post put emphasis on whether the premiums
increased along with the volume, which led me to believe that you
were commenting from a theoretical vantage point, rather than a real
world one. The first line of your recent post laid that belief to
rest. : )
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 20, 2001.
Good one Poole! Ok let's play it your way. The FL EO had to do with
the anticipated negative reaction to the release of the most
complete, accurate, and objective recount of the 2000 Presidential
Recount in Florida to date. This was to be released about the time
them planes hit them towers(what a coincidence). Apparently Jebby
feared the worse(that be the truth that Junior didn't win afterall-oh
the horror!). How's that for why the 2 almost identical EO's months
apart?
Course it does nothing to address why Florida is under Marshall Law
from EO 262, but nevermind it isn't important. How do you know this,
cause the "Liberal" media has ignored all of it.
Now to the question of the CIA. When was it you people just gave
these folks a Free Pass? 50 years of lying, and all of a sudden you
trust these people??? How exactly does this logic work?
You referenced Y2k, good. The reason Y2k never delivered largely had
to do with the fact we had 3 decades of evidence showing similar
computing issues never really amounting to anything worth public
mobilization over. Thus we had a track record to base opinions on.
With the CIA, we have even more evidence the last thing one wants to
do is believe a damn thing they say. What has changed? By DEFAULT one
is compelled I think to question CIA mutterings just as one was
instructed to look to the history of computing when placing Y2k INTO
A "PROPER" PERSPECTIVE.
We have Congressional Testimony and Hearings implicating the CIA as a
major Drug Operation. Afghanistan is the largest producer of Opium. I
think it downright *smart, to at least assume the CIA lobbing
cowchips and to question anything they say. Consider it nuts if you
like, I do not.
Look, it is no secret we have a Government run by abjunct IDIOTS. We
have a President who reminds himself to not screw-up by saying "make
no mistake about it" as a reflex. We have an Attorney General who
just yesterday figured out the Anthrax deal is most likely some PLOT!
WOW really??? We have Congressional Dopes so paranoid and stupid,
they do what has NEVER been done before in 200+ years, close
Congress. Why? cause apparently they freaked out over that Anthrax
bug as well. They can order our boys to fight, but they cannot even
show the minimum of guts or intelligence and run like their Commander-
and-Chief at the first signs of their precious necks at risk.
To understand 9-11-2001 I think one really needs to look at who
benefits. Who has benefitted since the Attacks? If one honestly does
so one has to admit this is just too good of a deal for Dubya and his
inner circle of buddies. How did they do it, if indeed they did?
Simple as standing down. Simple as allowing idiots in many branches
of government to do what they usually do,,,,fuck-up. An alert that
never reaches somebodys desk. A photo which disappears. As you say,
Clinton emasculated our intelligence community, and thus it didn't
really take much of anything did it?
As to the Stock deal, I think this really just indicative of a few in-
the-know taking advantage of the situation. The string pullers had
way bigger fish in mind. Namely a long and protracted War on
Terrorism and a two-term Dubya.
As to J, well this ain't no court of law dickie. Sorry I am not the
Goose-stepping Nazi you are accustom to. The links are valuable, deal
with it. Oh you have, you have buried your nose right up your butt
again. Proof? when the hell has this EVER mattered? They got STACKS
of it on OJ, did it matter? The freaking CIA has been at it for 5
decades, does it matter how many damn hearings they hold? How many
Ollie North's they question? Amazing is what you are. The guy who
defends McVeigh, just rolls on the CIA? How exactly does that logic
work?
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 20, 2001.
BTW, not that it could possibly matter to the dunderheads here but
let us set the freaking record straight once and for all, on this Jeb
Bush business shall we?
Here is what is NEW in the version of the Executive Order Jeb
Bush signed 4 days BEFORE the Attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon. That was the attempt to kill 50,000 Americans which
succeeded in ending 5,000 fellow citizens lives. That little event
CNN and company will not show you anymore in favor of showing you how
Bin Laden is simply misunderstood.
NEW in 261 over 017
Section 3.
The Florida National Guard may order selected members on to state
active duty for service to the State of Florida pursuant to Section
250.06(4), Florida Statutes, to assist FDLE in performing port
security training and inspections. Based on the potential massive
damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism
at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from
such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the smuggling of illegal drugs
into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to
support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections
is "extraordinary support to law enforcement" as used in Section
250.06(4), Florida Statutes.
Coincidence? maybe, has anyone even bothered to ask Jeb Bush why the
direct reference to Terrorism? in so doing, requiring an updating of
a prior EO from January? The whole basis in fact for the revision?
-- (wakethe@fuck.up), October 20, 2001.
Doc,
Sure the CIA has a less-than-sterling track record (there's an
understatement). But if you insist, there's no evidence that the CIA
has ever used that bad track record to KILL thousands of American
citizens. None whatsoever. Find it for me.
And I'm merely stating facts about the *current* CIA. In the past 10
years, they have been emasculated by the Clinton administration and
Congressional oversight. One of the worst rules was the one that
forbade the CIA from coopting any foreign national who had a criminal
or bad human-rights record -- which explains the *FACT* that the CIA
has *NOT* had Bin Ladin under "constant observation" in the past.
*FACT.* This is not even in dispute by most people who oppose the
current militarty action! You were WRONG about that and refuse to
admit it.
Another *FACT* is that you and the people at those links that you love
know *NOTHING* about puts and shorts and how professional investors
use them to get rich. I (and a few others here) have patiently tried
to show you the fallacy of your reasoning, but you REFUSE to see it.
(Actually, the evidence COULD be used to show that NON-professionals
... such as Bin Ladin and the terrorists ... might have used puts and
shorts to profit from Sept 11, but certainly not a wily trader with
experience on the street.)
You're making the wrong comparison to Y2K. It is YOU who have fallen
into the same trap as the Y2K Doomers, which is what makes this so
ironic. (If you want to complete the analogy, OK, go ahead and call me
a "polly sheeple." But YOU are definitely and without question a
"DOOMER.")
You have a Meme, plain and simple. You've already decided, a
priori, that the government is responsible for this, or at the
very least, knew enough to prevent it and didn't do so with malice and
forethought.
You just KNOW it, because it suits your predjudices about big business
and NWO agendas.
Therefore, you seek out Web pages that support your point of view.
Anything that blows away your argument is done by "sheeple" who need
to "wake up."
And you can't see this?
You're even emulating the very Doomers that you used to laugh at! When
you make an EGREGIOUS error, you just quietly drop THAT argument and
move onto to the next "proof."
Same as the doomers did in Y2K. "Yeah ... well ... OK, so maybe April
1st DIDN'T cause a major blow up ... but what about THIS AND THIS AND
THAT!"
You're doing the SAME THING, but you can't see that. You've advanced
one argument after another, only to have someone point out how
specious it is; you then drop it and move to the next argument, all
the while moaning that we "sheeple" can't see the truth and won't
"wake up."
Doc, the Doomer. Lord, life is full of irony.
I'm not going to do your work for you here: if you check press
releases from Sept 7, you'll see WHY Jeb Bush updated that EO (which,
by the way, COULD have been used as written to address Sept 11th --
but you ignore that, too).
Besides, you'd just read your own dark interpretation into THAT, so
why bother? Believe what you wish and be well.
-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 20, 2001.
Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that
may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity
to protect life and property
Now it is time for you Stephen Poole to shut the fuck-up and open
your eyeballs. I do not care to hear your Hannity and Colmes,Right
Wing rehash, rebute, retort of the CRAP you freaks dwell in.
Back AT YOUR WEBBOARD, Poole's Roast, Anita is asking you about the
FCC. Shall we go and re-explore what I said on this issue back in FEB
2001? Basically calling the shit 100% to the T and having Idiots like
you parrot back similar shit like the load you dumped just above?
You sir ARE THE WEAKEST LINK, good-bye.
-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), October 20, 2001.
Who needs this shit?
-- (lars@indy.net), October 20, 2001.
Doc,
Good to see that you finally used your handle on this
thread. You know, aliases don't work when you use the exact
same style of writing.
There is not much point in pursuing
this with you any further. Since, to you, "proof" of something is
merely a tedious detail that can be tossed aside with no further
thought, then there is no truth. There is no reasoning logically with
you. There is only whatever it is that you wish to believe is the
case.
If you have no proof for something, no problem. If your
points are soundly refuted, no problem, again. It's just full steam
ahead with that which you "know" to be true; all evidence to the
contrary be damned.
As Stephen said above, "Believe what you
wish and be well".
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 20, 2001.
so i take it you have no answer for the man, do you "j"? all you're
concerned with (as usual) is someone's "handle". for a man who
claims anonymous posters aren't worth the cyber-paper they're printed
on, you spend an awful lot of time replying to them. talk
about "irony". lmao.
the other "irony", poole, is that anyone ever thought you were
intelligent. there it is, staring you right in the face, and you
have the balls to call doc a "doomer". but you don't seem to have
the faculties to actually answer the man or respond to the EO in
question. what a surprise.
have YOU read the EO in question? seems pretty clear to me. but
then i have a couple of neurons i can rub together to form coherent,
ORIGINAL thought. you need to get away from the right wingnut radio
you dwell in.
-- are you blind (or@re.you.stupid), October 20, 2001.
All the shillpoole does is parrot "spin". The asshole is a friggin zombie.....You're not gonna get a straight answer. His answers have always been non-answers, and propaganda.
That's the MO of a suck-up chump.
-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 20, 2001.
Funny, I thought that was the MO of hypocritical tax protestors.
BTW, when you guys get done with this can you tell me what nursing
home it was that they kept JFK in after the assasination attempt? Or
what the exact timetable for the NWO takeover is? I missed last weeks
meeting :(
-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 20, 2001.
Doc and KoFE are lovers. I have pictures.
-- (XXX rated@tryst.motel), October 20, 2001.
anonymous fool,
If you note, I have known from the first post
that "wakethe@fuck.up" was actually Doc Paulie in disguise. That
rambling semi-coherent style that is his trademark is a dead
giveaway. : )
As far your comment to me, exactly what further
answer would you like me to give to the delusional ramblings of a
near raving lunatic? The man is way past left field, way past the
parking lot, beyond the grassy knoll, and I just hope that he's not
headed to the bell tower.
As I said earlier in the thread,
blaming the CIA for 9/11 is every bit as sensible as blaming Hillary
Clinton. After all, there just had to be a reason she moved to
New York, right?
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 20, 2001.
oh "J"....lmao. (by the way, is "j" your **real** name? or is it
just an anonymous handle? lol.) why don't you try addressing the EO
that was posted for your leisurely perusal? let me try to spell it
out for you and for poole who seems to have mysteriously disappeared
(i've noticed he does that when he has no clever comeback; "clever"
being quite the relative term). i'll type slowly knowing it might
help. i realize original thought is difficult for wingnuts.
the amendment to the EO ***specified*** terrorism and was signed (pay
attention -- this is the important part) four days before the
attacks.
there; i even put it in bold for you.
anything else you'd like spelled out?
-- are you blind (or@re.you.stupid), October 20, 2001.
Jesus Christ! That sure looks like a smoking gun to me. J, we
should be demanding a warrant be issued on all these bastards
immediately. Call your friends in the militia. We may need a posse
if responsible government officials don't take immediate action.
Never mind, Bush is charge of this now isn't he. The election
stealing scum. Bush here, Bush there, they're everywhere.
We better tell the militia boys to pick up Poole as well. It is
obvious that he is up to his neck involved in this cover-up. Jesus
Christ, the trecherous, cold-hearted bastards.
-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 21, 2001.
Here J is a news item for your consideration. Apparently it is not
Kosher for the Israeli's to be doing their own War On Terrorism.
Israel Tanks Roll Into Bethlehem
In Washington, the U.S. State Department warned Israel to stop
military incursions into Palestinian areas.
``Israeli entries into Palestinian-controlled areas are not helpful,
complicate the situation and should be halted,'' the department press
office said Friday.
Now just ignore this and go back sucking the IDIOTS bunghole J.
-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.
And I'm merely stating facts about the *current* CIA. In the
past 10 years, they have
been emasculated by the Clinton administration and Congressional
oversight.
Prove this "fact". If you look into it, you will find that it
was not Clinton who
"emasculated" the CIA.
One of
the worst rules was the one that forbade the CIA from coopting
any foreign national
who had a criminal or bad human-rights record.
The CIA was
not stopped from
using those people to gather intellegence, they were stopped from
funding and backing
terrorists. Ben Laden was one of the reasons Clinton made those
policy changes. Because our
promoting them could end up making them tuern around and terrorize us.
Do you think we
should still get people like ben Laden and train and supply them to do
our dirty work for us? Do
you think we need to train more terrorists to terrorize us??? If you
would research, you will find
that the CIA backed terrorists and allowed the torture of innocent
people by extremists who
killed for sport. The CIA had a nasty habit of finding the worse
people and training them to do
their dirty work for them. The CIA was obsessed with communisn to the
point where they would
take the most extreme terrorists and train them and supply them to
overthrow whatever
government felt was too "communist"(even if it weren't. It did not
matter that other countries
are not beholden to us to decide who and how their country is run.
Did God die and leave us in
charge? The CIA lost it purpose when the cold war ended, so they have
been running wild
thoughout the world toppling governments and causing mass horrors for
millions of people.
Don't think the middle east is the only place where we are hated. Our
government, and
especially our corporations have been using terrorism the world over
to make third world
countries bend to their will.
As for Ben Laden, the CIA was the
organization which
recruited him and hundreds of terrorists around the world and trained
them to fight the USSR.
If the CIA had not been allowed to use all of these criminals with
human rights abuses, they
wouldn't have been in a position to teach others the tricks of the
terroism trade to use against
us. If you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.
-- which explains the *FACT* that the
CIA has *NOT* had Bin Ladin under "constant observation" in the
past.
In what past? Clinton has had a bounty on his head for 5
years. He has tried to get him "removed". Clinton had a group
(backed by the Pakastan government) ready to go get Ben Laden until
the Pakastan government was overthrown by the Taliban terrorists and
the plan was crushed.
As for funding against terrorism;
U.S. Government Now Spends
$6.6 Billion on More Than 40 Programs Deterrence Budget
Explodes
Five states are bidding for the Defense
Department mock city project, with plans to
be decided sometime in 1998. That such a
plan exists demonstrates just how concerned
the federal government has become over the
possibilities of terrorist strikes and learning
how to respond to them.
Hundreds of New Programs
“There are today emerging
threats not only from
rogue states, but also from
terrorists that could affect
American forces around
the world and also
threaten domestically the
United States,” notes
National Security Council
spokesman P.J. Crowley.
The project is just one
in hundreds launched by
the federal government in
the past two years to
address terrorism threats.
At least 40 different government offices
are part of the nation’s still loosely organized
effort, with a total price tag of $6.6 billion on
terrorism-related programs, according to the
General Accounting Office.
FBI Terrorism Budget Doubles
Perhaps the biggest increase in
responsibilities has gone to the FBI, which has
seen its anti-terrorism budget more than
double since 1994.
This is from a 1998 ABCNEWS
Article.
http://archive.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/terrorism_progr
ams.html
Did you know about this? Or just pass it off as another
"Clinton tactic to get the attention away from his zipper"? Remember
his bombing of Afghanastan? It was called wagging the dog, remember?
Headlines stating he was trying to divert attention away from his sex
life.
-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), October 21, 2001.
As a matter of fact, here is an article on what I just posted, so you
can see it isn't just my opinion. 
Bill Press: Don't blame it on Bill Clinton
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
WASHINGTON (Tribune Media Services) --Here is one of the first rules
of politics: It’s not
enough
that I do well; I must also destroy my enemy.
Sadly, even in America’s war against terrorism, that rule still drives
a lot of Republicans. I see it
on the op-ed
pages. I get avalanches of it in my e-mail. I hear it in their public
statements. For them, it's not
enough that
most Americans give George W. Bush credit for doing a good job in
leading the nation against
Osama bin
Laden. They're not satisfied unless everybody also holds Bill Clinton
responsible for getting us
into this mess.
Yet the evidence shows his detractors have more to answer for than he
does.
The attacks of September 11 were only a few hours old when
conservative Congressman Dana
Rohrbacher,
R-California, blamed Clinton, not the terrorists: “We had Bill
Clinton, backing off, letting the
Taliban go, over
and over again.”
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh trumpeted on the pages of the Wall Street
Journal: “Mr. Clinton
can be held
culpable for not doing enough when he was commander-in-chief to combat
the terrorists who
wound up
attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who resigned in disgrace, also
chimed in, citing Clinton’s
“pathetically
weak, ineffective ability to focus and stay focused.”
Don't you love it? Gingrich and company derail the president and the
country for two whole
years over a minor
sex scandal in the White House -- magnifying one act of oral sex into
a full time, $50 million
Independent
Counsel investigation, weeks of House Judiciary Committee hearings,
impeachment by the
House of
Representatives and trial in the Senate -- and then they accuse
Clinton of not staying focused
on government
business!
Have they no shame?
The truth, of course, is just the opposite. Given how distracted he
was by the Lewinsky scandal,
(which was of
his own making, but blown out of proportion by his political enemies),
it’s amazing Clinton was
able to
continue governing at all. And during that time, as The Washington
Post reveals, he did a great
deal to combat
terrorism, much of it behind the scenes.
Clinton’s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile
attacks of 1998, directed
against Osama bin
Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings
of U.S. embassies in
Kenya and
Tanzania.
Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan,
Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to
share
information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S.
strikes missed bin Laden
by only a couple
of hours.
Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to
divert media attention from the
Lewinsky
hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more
criticism.
So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the
financial assets of
international
organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda
network -- identical to
orders given by
President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big
banks, by Republican
Senator Phil Gramm of
Texas.
Those actions, we knew about. Others, we did not, until recently.
Starting in 1998, for example,
Clinton gave
the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means were necessary to
gather information on
Osama bin Laden
and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist
activities against the United
States.
As part of that effort, the CIA, under Clinton, trained and equipped
some 60 commandos from
Pakistan to enter
Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The operation collapsed when
Pakistan experienced a
military coup and a
new government took over.
In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to
begin joint covert
operations against
Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces
have been training
there ever since,
which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a
staging area for forays
into
Afghanistan.
Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In
1996, his administration
brokered an
agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader
and turn him over to
Saudi Arabia. For
10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer.
They refused. With no
cooperation from the
Saudis, the deal fell apart.
Conclusion: Rohrbacher, Limbaugh, Gingrich are dead wrong when they
blame Bill Clinton for
September 11.
Did Clinton get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive?” No, but he came
close, several times -- long
before tracking
down terrorists became a national priority.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/index.html
-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), October 21, 2001.
The Wag the Dog was the Sudan, not Afghanistan. Call this latest
scheme "Walk the Dog". They need to have something for Americans to
rally around while Junior tanks the country something horrific. Hey,
it is what the guy has done his entire life, tank things.
Took Junior and Co over three weeks to strike back at some massively
outgunned and outmanned oldmen in the middle of no place. Course this
indicates what? This is about a protracted exercise designed to carry
dingbat thru 2004 and beyond is what. Plans to enter Afghanistan have
been on the drawing board for quite sometime, WTC or not.
I didn't think anyone could tank America faster than Bush Senior did
back in 90, I was wrong. 9 months in and it is mind numbing the
collapse. Some are seriously even saying the Internet now is history.
Gore may have not been any alternative, but voting for junior sure
was not an All Star decision now was it dittomonkies?
-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), October 21, 2001.
anonymous ignorant cowardly fool,
Yes, you must have the
answer, oh brilliant one. The Bush administration knew of the 9/11
attack ahead of time, but rather than foil it to save American lives,
they allowed it to happen so that they could declare (as Doc calls
it) "marshall" law. None of us ever would have known of their devious
scheme except for Jeb Bush spilling the beans by amending an
executive order a mere four days beforehand. Yes, you have it all
figured out, Einstein.
I can't decide which is more pathetic;
you believing that the Jeb Bush executive order meant that there was
specific advance knowledge (that wasn't acted upon) of the
9/11 terrorist attack, or you believing that the Bush administration,
if they had such information, would be so careless as to allow Jeb to
issue such an executive order just four days beforehand, knowing how
the loony toons like you and Doc would view such a
thing.
Doc Paulie,
The U.S. response to the Israel
situation is always the same. For the benefit of our relationships
with Arab allies like Saudi Arabia (read: oil), we publicly denounce
Israeli aggression, but in reality, we continue to stand behind
Israel's right to defend themselves against the terrorism of
fanatical Muslims. I guess that I gave you more credit in the
thinking department than I should have.
As far as your wise-
ass comments to me personally, I would tell you to go back to your
bottle, but based on your incoherent ramblings, I don't believe that
you ever put it down.
Cherri,
What is it that
causes someone to so hate capitalism? Is it abject failure? I am
interested to know the origins of the psychosis that makes one write
this: "Our government, and especially our corporations have been
using terrorism the world over to make third world countries bend to
their will".
I just knew that McDonald's used exploding
Big Macs in Bangladesh. LOL.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 21, 2001.
J-Dickhead you could not hold my water for me.
Fuck You and your band of morally deliquent, pussy kissing, gutless
band of impotent money-collectors.
DO NOT lecture me on WHY the US plays GAMES that a 4 year-old can see
are selfserving exercises meant to fool the likes of dimbulbs like J.
We support Israeli, blah blah blah, fucking forget it dumbass. I KNOW
the REASON, and am sick to here with it, get it???? Like the Saudis
are fooled? Only people fooled are the likes of you turds.
DO NOT lecture me or Cherri on what FREE ENTERPRISE is. YOUR economic
model is right out of the Nazi Socialist playbook. For the zillith
time, Capitalism is NOT a Free Market economy. Capitalism is about
nut gathering for scared, selfish, and arrogant SOBs which just
happen thru HISTORY, in America specifically, to call themselves
REPUBLICANS. Old story really, WELFARE for the few fatcats, tank the
entire rest of the market and then finger-point to others as to why
the house went to shit. Doubt as much, read the news TODAY.
YOU cannot address the Jeb Bush business because there exists no
believable response. You people cannot even provide a single link to
ANY news conference, news release, from this man explaining his
reasoning for the Terrorism update of the January EO. So again, your
reply is rejected as the CRAP it most surely is.
-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001.
Btw, you know what Jebby was doing the night of September 7? Having
dinner with his buddy Vicente Fox of Mexico.
Figures
-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001.
Doc, your point is well taken, that many of the posters on this forum choose to ignore facts that will get them in trouble. It is a damn shame they don't have the integrity to acknowledge their mistakes.
Instead, they just try to tear their opponent down.
-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), October 22, 2001.
Doc,
Nice rant. It looks like I hit a nerve with my comment
about your drinking.
I have addressed every unfounded,
baseless, unproven item that you have put forth, which was really
more than I should have done considering that you are just pulling
your "facts" (lol) out of thin air.
The bottom line is that
you can believe whatever you want to believe. Just try not to
convince those of us who reason logically that you have even the
slightest whiff of a clue as to what really goes on in life, because
you have proven, amply, that you are nothing more than a rambling,
incoherent, fool.
By the way, I would guess that on the night
of September 7th, that you were
drunk.
Figures.
KoFE,
Are you implying
that I have ignored facts? I have readily ignored the unsubstantiated
ramblings that Doc considers to be facts, but I don't believe that I
have ignored any actual facts. If I have done so, please
elaborate.
As far as tearing down Doc, if you will examine
this thread, you will see that I had put up with many of his false
personal attacks before finally pointing out the truth behind his
ramblings.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 22, 2001.
J you have not refuted a damn thing on this entire thread.
Look it ain't too hard to figure out that Jeb Bush and a pile of
others, knew something BIG was a coming. You will note the use of the
word MASSIVE in Mr. Jeb Bush's revision of his January 2001 Executive
Order.
Did he know exactly what the specifics of BIG were? We do not know
and apparently few care to even ask, even one would be a start. You
have chosen to give the man the benefit of the doubt, I have not. I
base my actions largely on Jeb's ridiculous behavior of last November
and the Presidential Election. Did others know "specifically"? Some
knew enough to put out travel advisories for selected VIPs that it
would be unwise to travel and even gave dates.
Look, the bottomline is we have more IDIOTS in positions of power
than one can shake a stick at. We have a blithering idiot as our
President for crying out loud(even you freepercreeps know that one).
We have a government basically CLUELESS about MOST things. Long term
to these dimbulbs is a Quarter, if that.
The failure those of us prone to Conspiracy thinking have is we
overlook the very real fact the issue is one of bureaucracy and
incompetency largely. To paint all of the actions and decisions as
part of some Master Plan is of course wrong. I doubt we do this
knowingly but it may appear as such to the average bird who thinks
life is basically true and above board.
Another failing the average person is burdened with is thinking they
are getting anything but manufactured propaganda from the "media".
What they are getting is Agenda. Small slices of what TPTB want you
to know. Anything not conforming is soundly rejected and the outlet
of such information is labeled a nut. It is very hard fighting
against the programming the average person lives under.
Did Jeb Bush know? Yes he did. What did he know? That a Massive
Terrorist incident at a major target was VERY likely. Beyond that, we
do not have specifics.
The fact nobody is asking guarantees the structure which ultimately
creates the blunders of governance will continue. YOUR atttitude J
contributes to the reality of a dsyfunctional governance. We need to
be asking many of these questions. Your atttitude, your approach is
Anti-Freedom, and Anti-American. You are better suited to living as a
dope under a Dictator. A reality we probably already have under this
Bush oligarchy, my bad.
-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001.
"Did Jeb Bush know? Yes he did. What did he know? That a Massive
Terrorist incident at a major target was VERY likely. Beyond that, we
do not have specifics.
Prattling on endlessly once again, dimbulb paulie cannot
differentiate between wanting things to be true and proving them to
be true. What you have paulie are typical conspiracy-goof
assertions. What you need is proof. What you need are facts. You
ain't got 'em...
-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001.
Doc,
You are contradicting yourself again. A couple of times
earlier in the thread you said that you basically agreed with me as I
was pointing out the shoddy logic (i.e. refuting) of your
assertions.
To refresh your memory, it has gone pretty much
like this: You post a couple of facts. Then you stretch for a
conclusion that is unsupported by those facts. Then I point out the
fallacy in your thinking. Then you get upset, call me names, and
start the whole process over with a new set of facts, and/or a more
realistic conclusion drawn from the earlier facts.
A perfect
example can be found in your most recent post. Earlier you were
asserting that the Bush administration knew exactly what was going to
happen on 9/11 and that was the basis of Jeb Bush's executive order
of September 7th. That assertion has now given way to the assertion
that the Bush administration had reason prior to 9/11 to suspect
heightened risk of terrorist activity. There is a huge difference
between the two assertions.
You need to learn to stop at what
can be reasonably concluded from the facts, and not stretch for the
outrageous that just makes you look like a nutcase. For instance,
like saying that I am "Anti-Freedom, and Anti-American", instead of
just stating that we see things differently.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 22, 2001.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ