Jon Gold On The North Virginia Patriots Show - 11/3/2008 - Audio Inside

[Gold9472]

Jon Gold On The North Virginia Patriots Show - 11/3/2008

Audio
Click Here (http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/virginiapatriots_gold.mp3)

Thank you to Brian and Ray for giving me the opportunity.

The North Virginia Patriots show is an interactive, live Internet political talk-radio show that focuses on libertarian views. Host Bryan and Ray cover all the topics going on in todays political world. The show airs Monday through Friday, 6-7 PM Eastern time. The show is hosted on http://www.rtrradio.com

Restore the Republic Radio is a free, web-based platform that is broadcasting the message of freedom to a republic that is starving to hear something other than the spoon-fed propaganda controlled by the five major media corporations. Providing you with engaging hosts and up to the minute live coverage from events and actions across our republic. RTR Radio is your one stop shop for the latest news from the freedom movement. The stream can be heard 24 hours a day at http://www.rtrradio.com

[Diane]

Thanks for posting this audio file.

I like your approach of saying that the U.S. government should be considered "a suspect" rather than insisting that "9/11 was an inside job."

Just a couple of points of disagreement:

1) It's inaccurate to say, as many people do, that "there was no investigation." There was indeed an investigation by the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm), although this investigation had its oddities, as noted in the section on on the FBI 9/11 Investigation (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=penttbom) on the Complete 911 Timeline (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project) on the History Commons site. Also the 2002 Joint Inquiry Report (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html) (which you mentioned) was an investigation into intelligence "failures." (See also 9/11 Congressional Inquiry (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=911CongressionalIn quiry) on the History Commons site.) However, the 9/11 Commission was the only attempt at a well-rounded look at what all went wrong on the government's end, besides just "intelligence failures."

2) It doesn't seem to me that "protection of Israel" would have been a major part of the motive. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq posed a significant threat to Israel. A false flag attack aimed at protecting Israel would more likely have had an appearance of involvement by Palestinians, or possibly Syrians, Lebanese, or Iranians.

The worst that can be said about Israel, as far as 9/11 is concerned, is that there's some evidence of possible relevant Israeli spying, and hence that Israel perhaps didn't give the U.S. government as specific a warning as perhaps it could have. If indeed that's true, then perhaps Israel's motive might have been simply a desire not to reveal the extent of Israel's spying apparatus on U.S. soil.

[Gold9472]

I don't believe I said there was no investigation because I've never said that before. In fact one of my favorite points to talk about was how the investigation we did get was a sham... with regards to Israel... America is certainly in a better position to "protect" Israel from Iraq.

[Gold9472]

I think you're talking about when I said that Bush and Cheney fought against an investigation...

[Diane]

Jon Gold wrote:


I think you're talking about when I said that Bush and Cheney fought against an investigation...

I guess that's what I am referring to. You did say something (probably the above) which came across to me as echoing the common claim that "there was no investigation" (though that might not have been your intent). Bush and Cheney didn't oppose the FBI investigating the alleged hijackers.

As for Iraq, it was already largely disarmed before the war began. Iraq was far less of a threat to Israel than Syria and Iran were.

[Gold9472]

Diane, I'm not talking about Iraq being a threat to Israel, I'm talking about the geopolitical placement of American forces in that region to defend against what are considered "real" threats. Iran for instance. It is certainly easier for America to "defend" Israel against Iran sitting in a country right next to it. With regards to Bush and Cheney, they did not want 9/11 investigated. And those investigations that did happen, had many problems because of the Bush Administration.

[Diane]

The FBI investigation did have its oddities, as noted in the Complete 9/11 Timeline, but can you point to any evidence of Bush and Cheney outright opposing even the FBI's investigation?

I see your point about the invasion of Iraq making a possible defense of Israel against Iran easier.

[Gold9472]

The FBI investigation did have its oddities, as noted in the Complete 9/11 Timeline, but can you point to any evidence of Bush and Cheney outright opposing even the FBI's investigation?

I see your point about the invasion of Iraq making a possible defense of Israel against Iran easier.

Outright opposing it... hmmm...

October 9, 2001: FBI Agents Told to Curtail 9/11 Investigation and Focus on Preventing Future Attacks
It is reported that the FBI and Justice Department have ordered FBI agents across the US to cut back on their investigation of the September 11 attacks, so as to focus on preventing future, possibly imminent, attacks. According to the New York Times, while law enforcement officials say the investigation of 9/11 is continuing aggressively, “At the same time… efforts to thwart attacks have been given a much higher priority.” Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller “have ordered agents to drop their investigation of the [9/11] attacks or any other assignment any time they learn of a threat or lead that might suggest a future attack.” Mueller believes his agents have “a broad understanding of the events of September 11,” and now need “to concentrate on intelligence suggesting that other terrorist attacks [are] likely.” The Times quotes an unnamed law enforcement official: “The investigative staff has to be made to understand that we’re not trying to solve a crime now. Our number one goal is prevention.” [New York Times, 10/9/2001 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E5DB113CF93AA35753C1A9679C8B 63)] At a news conference the previous day, Ashcroft stated that—following the commencement of the US-led attacks on Afghanistan—he had placed federal law enforcement on the highest level of alert. But he refused to say if he had received any specific new threats of terrorist attacks. [US Department of Justice, 10/8/2001 (http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2001/agcrisisremarks10_08.htm)] The New York Times also reports that Ashcroft and Mueller have ordered FBI agents to end their surveillance of some terrorist suspects and immediately take them into custody. However, some agents have been opposed to this order because they believe that “surveillance—if continued for days or weeks—might turn up critical evidence to prove who orchestrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.” [New York Times, 10/9/2001 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E5DB113CF93AA35753C1A9679C8B 63)] Justice Department communications director Mindy Tucker responds to the New York Times article, saying it “is not accurate,” and that the investigation into 9/11 “has not been curtailed, it is ongoing.”

From my facts article...

Fact #14
The Joint Congressional Inquiry, which both Bush and Cheney tried to “[u]limit the scope (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/)” of, released a report with 28 redacted pages (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/world/main565782.shtml). Apparently, those 28 pages (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a121102blamebush#a121102blamebush ) talk about “possible Saudi Arabian financial links.” In 2004, Sen. Bob Graham says that the Bush White House is covering up (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a090704grahamcoverup#a090704graha mcoverup) Saudi Arabia’s possible connection to the two hijackers that lived in San Diego. He said the information about them, “present[s] a compelling case that there was Saudi assistance.” He also says that the Bush Administration directed the FBI “to restrain and obfuscate” any investigations into the connection. The landlord of the two hijackers was Abdussatar Shaikh, an FBI asset handled by agent Steven Butler (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a100902butler#a100902butler). The FBI originally tried to prevent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A9773-2002Oct10&notFound=true) Butler from testifying before the Congressional Inquiry, but when he finally did, he said that he may have been able to uncover the 9/11 plot if the CIA shared their information on the two hijackers. He said, “it would have made a huge difference.” [...] “We would have immediately opened… investigations. We would have given them the full court press. We would… have done everything-physical surveillance, technical surveillance, and other assets.”

The first is posted because who were the bosses of Ashcroft and Mueller... one might assume that BushCo had something to do with that. The second is pretty obvious.

[Diane]

Thanks very much for the info.

[Gold9472]

You're welcome. It's not exactly what you're looking for (if it exists), but it is a good example of what I said about "those investigations that did happen, had many problems because of the Bush Administration."

[Diane]

So then, it would be more accurate to say that Bush and Cheney hampered all investigations (in one way or another) than to say that "they did not want 9/11 investigated" (which wording would likely be interpreted by "debunkers" as a claim that Bush and Cheney did not want 9/11 investigation at all, even a limited investigation of the alleged hijackers by the FBI). It is also accurate to say that they did not want an investigation into what went wrong on the U.S. government's end.

[simuvac]

2) It doesn't seem to me that "protection of Israel" would have been a major part of the motive. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq posed a significant threat to Israel. A false flag attack aimed at protecting Israel would more likely have had an appearance of involvement by Palestinians, or possibly Syrians, Lebanese, or Iranians.

The worst that can be said about Israel, as far as 9/11 is concerned, is that there's some evidence of possible relevant Israeli spying, and hence that Israel perhaps didn't give the U.S. government as specific a warning as perhaps it could have. If indeed that's true, then perhaps Israel's motive might have been simply a desire not to reveal the extent of Israel's spying apparatus on U.S. soil.
This is somewhat tangential but worth noting: Philip Zelikow said the primary reason for invading Iraq was Israel.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm

”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.

”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.

So, "protection of Israel" has been an overriding theme of the Bush neocons, many of whom belonged to the Project for the New American Century, and some of whom drafted the Clean Break doctrine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break)

9/11 generated significant anti-Muslim sentiment worldwide, which continues to be mined for the purpose of militarization. Any anti-Muslim sentiment is a good thing for Israel, because it gives pro-Israel hawks the sheen of legitimacy in the face of "Muslim terrorism".

It doesn't prove anything specific about Israel and 9/11, of course, but it adds to the context.

[Gold9472]

Fact #15
The Bush Administration was the families’ “biggest adversary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481)” when it came to the creation of a so-called Independent 9/11 Commission. The families had to fight “tooth and nail (http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/10/int04053.html),” and lobby (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803EEDE163CF931A25755C0A9649C8B 63) to get an investigation because the Bush Administration clearly did not (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml) want one (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03EEDB163EF931A35752C1A9649C8B 63). Dick Cheney and George Bush refused (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/) to testify under oath before select individuals of the 9/11 Commission even though the families wanted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1fyfLAK-Zg) them to. They testified together, not in public, and no recordings were allowed. The families requested the transcripts of their meeting, but were denied. They made it difficult (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html) for the commission to get funding. They tried to make Henry Kissinger (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a112702kissinger#a112702kissinger ) the Chairman of the commission, but he resigned (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a121302kissingerresigns#a121302ki ssingerresigns) after the families started asking too many questions. Alberto Gonzales “stonewalled (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0603gonzaleskean#a0603gonzaleske an)” the 9/11 Commission’s access to the White House. They appointed Thomas Kean (http://www.alternet.org/story/14820/) as Chairman, someone “who will be easily controlled by the administration,” and Lee Hamilton, a long time friend (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=abefore112702hamiltondickdon#abef ore112702hamiltondickdon) of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to be the co-chair. Hamilton participated in two inquiries that resulted in cover-ups. The Iran/Contra Affair inquiry (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=amid80shamiltonirancontra#amid80s hamiltonirancontra), and the October Surprise (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a92surprisecoverup#a92surprisecov erup) inquiry.

[Diane]

The Clean Break doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break) article suggests that the point (in terms of defense of Israel) of encouraging the U.S. to invade Iraq was to strengthen Jordan at the expense of Syria. This article says:


Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizballah), Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), and Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria). Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Hussein)."

[Gold9472]

Have you ever read the piece (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=55054&postcount=6) from Harvard Diane?

[Gold9472]

"Unwillingness to investigate..." is what I said. Listen to Dick Cheney (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/cheneydontinvestigate911.mp3)... Also, give this (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18864) a read.

[Diane]

Jon wrote:


Have you ever read the piece (showpost.php?p=55054&postcount=6) from Harvard Diane?

No, I hadn't. Thanks for calling my attention to it. I notice that it appears in a thread (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9054) containing different points of view about the relationship between the U.S. and Israel. I'll have to look at all these articles in more detail later.

[Gold9472]

Diane... one thing you'll find about this site is that there is a RIDICULOUS amount of information. A RIDICULOUS amount of information.