Gold9472
05-07-2009, 08:37 PM
DoD Inspector General's Reports Within The Last 5/6 Years May Have Been Cover-Ups
Jon Gold
5/7/2009
Today, Rawstory reported (http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/07/frank-rich-eternal-vigilance-needed-to-stop-dod-propaganda/#tab=home&url=home.php) on New York Times columnist Frank Rich, and his belief that the Defense Department Inspector General's office's investigations over the years may have been cover-ups that were "carried out in response to "orders from above." He said that any report "over the past five or six years during the war in Iraq" may be suspect, and that "there may be a much bigger story here."
Really?
Maybe that's why when the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html) reported on 8/2/2006 that "the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public" and that "the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation," a report (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/washington/05norad.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) was released on 8/5/2006 by the Defense Department Inspector General's office that said, NORAD’s mistakes were due to "inadequate forensic capabilities" and "poor record-keeping." A ridiculous excuse within "the past five or six years during the war in Iraq."
Maybe that's why when the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/politics/09intel.html?) reported on 8/9/2005 that "more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress," a report (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69870&postcount=1) was released on 9/21/2006 by the Defense Department Inspector General's office, and it was reported that, "a review of records from the unit, known as Able Danger, found no evidence it had identified ringleader Mohamed Atta or any other terrorist who participated in the 2001 attacks." A report that former Rep. Curt Weldon said was created by a an Inspector General that "cherry-picked testimony from witnesses in an effort to minimize the historical importance of the Able Danger effort." Also within "the past five or six years during the war in Iraq."
Most people are comfortable with the idea that the Bush Administration and others lied about the Iraq War, wiretapping, torture, among many other things, but refuse to believe they would lie about 9/11. I think it's time for the world to admit that the 9/11 attacks were covered-up, and there needs to be truth, justice and accountability. Otherwise, the "Post-9/11 World" will destroy us.
Jon Gold
5/7/2009
Today, Rawstory reported (http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/07/frank-rich-eternal-vigilance-needed-to-stop-dod-propaganda/#tab=home&url=home.php) on New York Times columnist Frank Rich, and his belief that the Defense Department Inspector General's office's investigations over the years may have been cover-ups that were "carried out in response to "orders from above." He said that any report "over the past five or six years during the war in Iraq" may be suspect, and that "there may be a much bigger story here."
Really?
Maybe that's why when the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html) reported on 8/2/2006 that "the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public" and that "the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation," a report (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/washington/05norad.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) was released on 8/5/2006 by the Defense Department Inspector General's office that said, NORAD’s mistakes were due to "inadequate forensic capabilities" and "poor record-keeping." A ridiculous excuse within "the past five or six years during the war in Iraq."
Maybe that's why when the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/politics/09intel.html?) reported on 8/9/2005 that "more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress," a report (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=69870&postcount=1) was released on 9/21/2006 by the Defense Department Inspector General's office, and it was reported that, "a review of records from the unit, known as Able Danger, found no evidence it had identified ringleader Mohamed Atta or any other terrorist who participated in the 2001 attacks." A report that former Rep. Curt Weldon said was created by a an Inspector General that "cherry-picked testimony from witnesses in an effort to minimize the historical importance of the Able Danger effort." Also within "the past five or six years during the war in Iraq."
Most people are comfortable with the idea that the Bush Administration and others lied about the Iraq War, wiretapping, torture, among many other things, but refuse to believe they would lie about 9/11. I think it's time for the world to admit that the 9/11 attacks were covered-up, and there needs to be truth, justice and accountability. Otherwise, the "Post-9/11 World" will destroy us.