I am not to blame for the pathetic U.S. government response on 9/11.
We all should demand accountability from the Bush administration for their malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance before, during, and after 9/11.
There should have been more than 20 "ready alert" scramble aircraft in the U.S. on 9/11.
There should have been "ready alert" scramble aircraft at Andrews on 9/11.
Bush should have been expecting the use of aircraft as a missile since this had been suggested in print before 9/11.
Bush should have been expecting an attack from al Qaeda before 9/11.
None of this demonstrates complicity by the Bush administration in the attacks on 9/11.
None of this is an excuse for the mountain of easily-refuted garbage dumped on the Internet by conspiracists.
I have repeatedy supported a full investigation. See below.
Most of what you said about me and my arguments in your post below is easily-refuted simply by searching the Internet. You have an obligation to get the basic facts straight if you challenge me to a debate. Logic, fairness, and fact-checking. That's what I am asking for.
The suggestion by you that I am somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks is an outrageous personal attack. How would you like it if I suggested that so-called researchers who consistently post ludicrous assertions and easily-refuted conspiracist claims on the Internet about Bush administration complicity in the 9/11 attacks could possibly be dupes of the CIA in a secret plot to divert attention from the serious and easily-proven charges of Bush malfeasance?
If you are not willing or able to use logic and fact-checking when blasting me in a public forum, then you need to consider why, and what purpose is served by the repeated attacks and falsehoods you are posting. At the very least, you have to stop the nasty personal attacks.
Chip Berlet
=========
>From the PRA website:
People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a "secret team" or a tiny club of "secret elites." The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression. Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege; but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy.
There are many unanswered questions about the attacks on 09/11/01, the obvious failures of existing security systems, the decisions regarding the assessment of terrorist threats; the wisdom, morality, and legality under international law of the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq; the implementation of repressive domestic measures such as the Patriot Act and the confinement of immigrants and undocumented visitors without due process; and the reluctance and refusal of key government officials to fully cooperate with congressional and media investigations. Political Research Associates fully supports the vigorous investigation of these matters.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Wanzala [mailto:jwanzala at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 4:40 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: Is Berlet Combat Ready?
>
>
> At this point, Andrews AFB is a red herring. The fact is that
> there were. at
> several Air Force bases "jet aircraft, fueled up, warmed up,
> ready to go at
> Andrews with fighter pilots sitting in a ready room ready to
> take off."
>
> Why is Chip Berlet not wondering why there was no response
> from the Air
> Force bases (other than Andrews AFB) that we know were combat ready?
>
> Why is Chip Berlet attacking those who raise the question of
> government
> incompetence if not complicity in the 9-11 attacks? To be
> sure we have to
> endeavor to get out facts right, and dissident 9-11
> reseachers have such
> debates all the time but do not, like Berlet, use these
> debates attack the
> overall validity of questioning the government story.
>
> 9-11 dissident researchers have been more right than they
> have been wrong in
> their deconstruction of government lies about the event.
>
> Assuming it is true that there were no combat ready planes at
> Andrews AFB,
> why not?
>
> Whose side is Chip Berlet on? Why has Chip Berlet not
> contributed anthing to
> interrogating the Bush administrations lies about 9-11?
>
> The fact remains that on 11 September there were entire squadrons of
> combat-ready fighter jets at several bases within reach of
> the hijacked
> planes. Their job was to protect the skies. They failed to do
> their job.
>
> Joe W.
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
> >Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> >To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> >Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: Is Berlet Combat Ready?
> >Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:00:46 -0700
> >
> >Joseph Wanzala quotes Chip:
> >
> > >> "Well, they are combat-ready. That means that unit of
> > >> the military could be sent into combat -- somewhere
> between 24 and
> > >> 72 hours. There is no evidence, and to this day there is no
> > >> evidence that there were jet aircraft, fueled up, warmed
> up, ready
> > >> to go at Andrews with fighter pilots sitting in a ready
> room ready
> > >> to take off."
> >
> >And then misunderstands this article:
> >
> > > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5215957/
> >
> >... in particular:
> >
> >|> First, President Bush would have had to have ordered
> >|> that any hijacked airliners be shot down; the military's rules of
> >|> engagement did not allow for that without such presidential
> >|> intercession. Bush ultimately did make that call, but
> only after the
> >|> Pentagon was hit.
> >|>
> >|> Second, NORAD's F-16 Fighting Falcons at Langley Air Force Base,
> >|> near Norfolk, Va., would have had to have been launched sooner.
> >
> >Note that Andrews Air Force Base was not one of the "ready
> alert" bases
> >on 9/11 ...
> >
> >Chip makes this (correct) distinction because in an earlier post he
> >wrote:
> >
> > >> Ruppert continues to plug the baseless story about a government
> > >> conspiracy behind the jets not flying out of Andrews, written by
> > >> Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel:
> > >> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_20_01_911murder.html
> >
> >[ see
> ><http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-2
0040301/00
>5
>088.html> ]
>
>That article starts with this:
>
>:> Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 :>
>miles from the Pentagon. :>
>:> On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready
>:> fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over
>:> Washington D.C. They failed to do their job.
>
>Which is, as they say, crap in at least 3 ways.
>
>Regardless, Langley AFB is over 130 miles from the Pentagon.
>
>Chip: 1
>Joseph: 0
>
>/jordan
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk