I wanted to get some chat going about the law of Hate Crimes. I have my opinion regarding charging a criminal with a hate crime. The examples below, to me, should of also carried the charge of hate crimes. Besides being here in K-town and awaiting word on the Double murder/torture case– I was also traveling to Huntington WV taking my brother to the VA Hospital, and accidently joined in a protest regarding this very issue about the woman who was held an tortured by whites. I know we have this law… but for the life of me I can’t figure out why in the hell it is used rarely. Are towns and cities afraid?? of what?? riots? I do not feel any city, town nor people should remain silent about a wrong, out of fear of retaliation or anything else. Watch these… and then let’s talk. [I previously told you I see Channon's father fairly regularly. HE knows the truth, and it is true about the torture and mutilations. Not only are they listed in the indictments, Hell, just the one fact about his daughter being in more than one trash bag goes to mutilation!!] Anyway– I look forward to opinions.
Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out “Crowd Control”
By Naomi Wolf, AlterNet. Posted October 8, 2008.
Members of Congress were told they could face martial law if they didn’t pass the bailout bill. This will not be the last time.
Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing “unruly individuals,” and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks.
George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the “War on Terror,” the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.
He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined “insurrection” or many other “conditions” he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus — habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial — in the event of an “insurrection.” With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters “insurgents” staging an “insurrection” is strengthened.
U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California said to Congress, captured on C-Span and viewable on YouTube, that individual members of the House were threatened with martial law within a week if they did not pass the bailout bill:
“The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. … Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.”
If this is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they are willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat.
I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification:
“If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?”
“Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders.”
“But these orders are now legal?’”
“Correct.”
“If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop him?”
“Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken.”
“If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?”
“Nothing.”
“What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post?”
“Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq — send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else.”
“What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against U.S. citizens?”
“They’d probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters — reservists who refused to go back to Iraq — got longer sentences than war criminals.”
“Does Congress have any military of their own?”
“No. Congress has no direct control of any military units. The Governors have the National Guard but they report to the President in an emergency that he declares.”
“Who can arrest the President?”
“The Attorney General can arrest the President after he leaves or after impeachment.”
[Note: Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has asserted it is possible for District Attorneys around the country to charge President Bush with murder if they represent districts where one or more military members who have been killed in Iraq formerly resided.]
“Given the danger do you advocate impeachment?”
“Yes. President Bush struck down Posse Comitatus — which has prevented, with a penalty of two years in prison, U.S. leaders since after the Civil War from sending military forces into our streets — with a ’signing statement.’ He should be impeached immediately in a bipartisan process to prevent the use of military forces and mercenary forces against U.S. citizens”
“Should Americans call on senior leaders in the Military to break publicly with this action and call on their own men and women to disobey these orders?”
“Every senior military officer’s loyalty should ultimately be to the Constitution. Every officer should publicly break with any illegal order, even from the President.”
“But if these are now legal. If they say, ‘Don’t obey the Commander in Chief,’ what happens to the military?”
“Perhaps they would be arrested and prosecuted as those who refuse to participate in the current illegal war. That’s what would be considered a coup.”
…because he’s calling for a Stasi-like “national security force” consisting of middle & high school children that is larger than the US military ?
***Roosevelt formed the Civilian Conservation Corps and Kennedy created the Peace Corps with strong support and participation, while Clinton’s AmeriCorps has never fully realized its potential, hampered by continuing funding struggles since its 1994 inception. Still, as Sen. Barack Obama called for greater public service Wednesday, some experts predict the potential now exists for programs seeking an expansion of volunteerism to succeed, despite a slumping economy and the nation being at war. “This may be a moment in time that is different from when earlier calls did not prove that effective,” said Stephen Goldsmith, a former Indianapolis mayor and chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Goldsmith, a Republican and professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, said bipartisan support, serious societal problems and heightened interest in service among young people could offer new or expanded service programs the ability for growth not seen in decades
Loving your country shouldn’t just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July,” Obama said. “Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, our country will be stronger.” In his speech at a University of Colorado campus, he pledged that enhanced public service and active citizenship would be a central cause of his presidency. “We will ask Americans to serve,” the Illinois Democrat said. “We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve.” Obama’s draw to youth is multifaceted.
For supporters, Obama’s credibility on the topic is enhanced because he proved during the primary campaign that he could captivate and then mobilize young voters. His campaign argues they might also follow him into community service. Clinton had a similar, though not quite as powerful, pull among youth. But his AmeriCorps program, which recruits workers in exchange for an education stipend, has never caught on the way the Peace Corps did in the 1960s and ’70s. Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain of Arizona also supports an expansion of both programs and has stressed public service, including in the military, during campaign appearances.
Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he said the nation’s future and safety depends on more than just additional service members.
Quotes re: multiple ideas–
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle school and high school students.
For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students tied to that level of service.
…because he “believes” in the delusional “War on Terror” ?
Some facts>
Opposes surge–hasn’t produced political solution. (Sep 2008)
Unwise war in Iraq distracted us from catching Bin Laden. (Sep 2008)
The surge is a tactic to contain 4 years of mismanaged war. (Sep 2008)
Iraq has at most $59B surplus, not $79B surplus. (Sep 2008)
Promised 16-month exit; now 16-month reduction. (Sep 2008)
You don’t defeat a terrorist network by occupying Iraq. (Aug 2008)
I will only send our troops into harm’s way when necessary. (Aug 2008)
Situation has improved in Iraq; but it’s still fragile. (Jul 2008)
Surge reduced violence; but distracts us from long-term goal. (Jul 2008)
$10 billion a month spent in Iraq should be spent in the US. (Jul 2008)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics. (Apr 2008)
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission. (Apr 2008)
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable. (Feb 2008)
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis. (Feb 2008)
Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war. (Jun 2007)
Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check. (Nov 2007)
Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans. (Jun 2007)
Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
…because Joe Biden is a “War on Terror” fear monger who during the Dem debates spouted off the same fear mongering rhetoric as the GOP’s Neocons were using ?
The ‘terrorist’ that they speak of are the same growing group that the majority of countries have ignored &/or been battling for over 20 years. GB has done a splendid job of screwing up the minds of Americans into thinking Iraq is about terrorists. Being ‘inside’ DC he, as well as others… know things we most likely will never know. BUT– I trust my special friend in the odd shaped building, and he states without flinching that we will be in Iran in less than 15 years. And that terrorists are a unique and wide reached bunch of dangerous renegades… splintered around the world. It isn’t a war against terror, its a battle daily and a defense. So call Joe and others what you will– the one particular fear regarding terrorists is real. Now, Afghanistan, Iraq etc are totally different topics.
…because supports the notion of a military draft (sounds similar to annual legislative proposals from another Democrat -who endorsed him- for a ‘universal’ military draft that includes all women ages 18-40) ? “If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some”.
He actually stated that females need to register if males do. BUT he is against them being in battle zones. And, really that is legal and equal to the majority of the scale. We are the ones who made the laws… now we shall whine about them when challenged.
…because Obama voted for the new FISA Act, which granted immunity to telecommunication corporations for illegal wiretapping , and runaway governmental wiretapping ?
Now let’s research this a bit guys! I mean really– talk about some folks getting mad when emailers don’t check out snopes before sending something. Be informed guys… read the bill…
because he didn’t support Dennis Kucinich’s drive to impeach Bush & Cheney, stating that “impeachment is not acceptable” ?
He did not remark about Dennis– he answered a question about impeachment. I do agree with critics on this one though– I think he ‘bottom-line’ felt that impeachment proceedings would be costly as far as the campaigns and election goes. My opinion here. lol
…because he has pledged to let Bush’s crimes remain buried for all time ?
And that quote was from where????
…because he disregards the fact that the primary motivation for 9/11 terror attacks on the US is US foreign policy itself (meaning that continuing the perpetual war policy literally means never ending perpetual war) ?
Not to bad an idea, accept now we have a huge bail-out loan repayment for shit we didn’t do…lol . This was a bill he and many supported prior to the economic landslide!
…because Zbignew Brzezinski his chief foreign policy adviser, is a flagrant neoliberal global imperialist who essentially created “Osama Bin Laden” and the “War on Terror” ?
not exactly his chief advisor.. the man has been around forever… sometimes the internet , and what people cut and paste around, is like that old game ‘telephone’ with the cans and string . Start with “May I have a pop cycle?”… and ten kids later you get “Mike has a purple bicycle”
…because he supports Bush Co.’s Russian border missile “defense shield”, which is their ’solution’ of creating a “New Cold War” to ensure perpetual wars even with an eroding notion of a never-ending “War on Terror” ?
OMG! Another can n’ string thing!
Staff Writer
Warsaw (AFP) Sept 11, 2008
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the United States on Thursday of seeking to encircle Russia, and reiterated Moscow’s opposition to US plans to install a missile shield on Polish soil.
Lavrov accused Washington of preparing “not only a third, but also a fourth and fifth region in which to station (missile shield elements) and not just close to Russia’s European borders.” “We’re asking these questions of our American partners,” he said. Lavrov spoke during a visit to Poland, the first by a senior Russian leader to an EU member state since Russia’s war with Georgia in August and Poland’s agreement that same month to host part of the complex US missle shield system. In an article published in Polish news media Thursday, Lavrov repeated the Kremlin’s view that the missile shield targets Russia, rather than any potential threat from “rogue states” such as Iran. “A simple military analysis proves that a US base in Europe for global anti-missile defense has no other, and for many years will have no other, target but Russian missiles,” Lavrov wrote in the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper. “All objective experts understand that Iran’s missiles pose no threat to Europe and even less to the United States.” Clearly trying to reassure Lavrov, Poland’s foreign minister said US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would only proceed with basing the missile shield in Poland if he is sure it isn’t meant for Russia. “In talks with me, senator Obama made the realization of our (missile shield) agreement conditional on whether he will be certain that the system is not aimed against Russia,” Radoslaw Sikorski told reporters alongside Lavrov. “In a mini-military briefing given before yesterday to senator McCain in which I participated, I can say that what the candidate was told about the purpose of the (missile shield) system has nothing to do with Russia,” Sikorski said, referring to Obama’s Republican rival John McCain. “So we hope that Russian fears over this agreement will dissipate with time,” Sikorski said. Lavrov said that while Russia saw not threat from Poland, it felt “there are risks to the security of the Russian Federation that are occurring as a result of American infrastructure coming closer to our borders”. Poland and the United States signed a deal on August 14 taking forward the missile shield programme. Washington will position 10 interceptor missiles in Poland — plus a radar facility in neighboring Czech Republic — by 2011-2013 to complete a system already in place in the Britain, Greenland and the United States. The United States says the shield — endorsed by NATO leaders in February — is tailored to fend off potential missile strikes by “rogue states” such as Iran, and it insists it is not directed at Russia. The Kremlin, however, regards it as a grave security threat, and on Wednesday it threatened to turn its own missiles towards missile shield facilities in Europe. Turning to Georgia, Lavrov said South Ossetia has no intention of joining the Russian Federation, as claimed by the breakaway region’s leader who soon retracted his remarks. “I don’t know where you have heard this information. South Ossetia doesn’t want to enter anywhere,” Lavrov said, after South Ossetian separatist leader Eduard Kokoity was quoted by a Russian news agency as saying his Georgian breakaway region wanted to be part of Russia. Kokoity later backtracked on his remarks.
…because Obama is just another frontman for the privately-owned tyrannical Federal Reserve, which has devalued the dollar to being worth less than 4 cents since its inception in 1913 ?
Statement from Obama on Emerging Federal Reserve-Treasury Plan
September 19, 2008 Chicago, IL -
Below is a Statement from Senator Barack Obama on the Emerging Federal Reserve - Treasury Plan:
“The events of the last few days have made it clear that we must take further bold and decisive action to shore up confidence in our financial markets and avoid a deepening economic crisis that could jeopardize the life savings and well-being of millions of Americans. I support the effort of Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke to work in a bipartisan spirit with the Congressional leadership to find a systemic solution to our deepening crisis, and I will closely examine the specifics of their effort and the opportunities for swift action. As I review the emerging details of Fed-Treasury proposal with my top economic advisors this morning I will be guided by four basic principles:
“First, we cannot lose sight that we are in the midst of a broad economic crisis that also requires immediate action to create jobs and help support distressed homeowners and communities. For too long, this Administration has been willing to hit the fast forward button in helping distressed Wall Street firms while pressing pause when it comes to saving jobs or keeping families in their homes. Swift and unprecedented action to shore up Wall Street must come alongside equally swift and serious efforts to help struggling families on Main Street, create new jobs, and grow our middle-class once more.
“Second, any taxpayer-funded support must have as its focus protecting our nation’s long-term interest in a stable financial market and a growing economy rather than rewarding particular companies or the imprudent decisions of borrowers or lenders. These extraordinary steps must be designed with only the public good in mind, not to enhance the personal gain of CEOs and management at taxpayers’ expense.
“Third, this plan must be temporary and coupled with tough new oversight and regulations of our financial institutions. There must be a clear process to wind down this plan and restore private sector assets into private sector hands after restoring stability to the system. Taxpayers must share in any upside benefit that such stability brings.
“Finally, this plan should be part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20. We are facing a global financial crisis and the United States can take a leadership role in coordinating a global response to the present crisis, as well as greater regulatory cooperation and alignment to prevent future crises.
“As we move beyond immediate actions to stabilize financial markets, it is important that we build upon the ideas I have laid out over the last several years about how to modernize our financial regulation. Eliminating consumer protections and lax oversight contributed to the crisis we are in today, and establishing commonsense rules of the road for our financial system can help restore confidence in our financial system.
“Given the gravity of this situation, and based on conversations I have had with both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, I have asked my economic team to refrain from presenting a more detailed blue-print of how an immediate plan might be structured until the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have had an opportunity to present their proposal. It is critical at this point that the markets and the public have confidence that their work will be unimpeded by partisan wrangling, and that leaders in both parties work in concert to solve the problem at hand,” said Senator Barack Obama.
…because Joe Biden supports what amounts to runaway copyright laws expanding “Big 5″ media content protection? Because Biden bends over for expanded FBI powers, and supports stymying private citizens rights to using software encryption? Because Biden has about the most dismal Cyber Rights voting record possible ?
Ya, know…Palin may have not know GW’s war statement policy etc… but really DO ANY OF US KNOW EXACTLY WHAT A TOTAL BILL HAS IN IT???
because Obama was soft on HR1951 / S1959, which was the open embracement of the modern day COINTELPRO which was used to violently repress civil rights groups (Black Panthers, etc) in the 60’s and 70’s ?
Talk about a cyber bite! lol He wasn’t even in DC yet.
Here ya go… READ folks.
re: HR1951 You need to know what the hell that bill is about. Geeeece– whether you like the guy or not, the truth will stand when the worlds on fire. At least be enlightened, and have knowledge.
because he’s just another front for NAFTA, even though he tries to deny it
Trade
Obama and Biden believe that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security. They also believe that Nafta was oversold to the citizen of America.
Fight for Fair Trade: Obama and Biden will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. They will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama and Biden will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and no tariff barriers on U.S. exports.
Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama and Biden believe that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. They will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama and Biden will update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.
End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving their operations overseas. Obama and Biden will also fight to ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies that are committed to American workers.
Reward Companies that Support American Workers: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 with Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to reward companies that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers. The legislation would provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America if it has ever been in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.
…because despite criticizing the “Politics of Fear”, he still supports both the War on Terror & Global Warming. After years of propaganda from each side on these matters he doesn’t even have to directly engage in pure fear mongering. He merely needs to mention the issues and support them. The effects of others fear mongering is already there to invoke. FACT: there isn’t an actual consensus on man made “Global Warming”.
Obama, as well as Biden believe Global Warming to be a product of many factors– especially factors man induced and allowed to grow unchecked.
From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington
The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.
The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.
The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.
“The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people,” said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. “The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable.”
In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.
It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.
“What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model,” Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned. They did it so well it was almost unbelievable.”
Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, for example, rising temperatures can be observed up to 700 metres below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 100m down.
Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. “The fact that this has gone on in different ways gives us the chance to figure out who did it,” Dr Barnett said.
“All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one.
“This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now, and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and its likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming.”
Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday. “It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join,” he said.
“We have got a serious problem ahead of us. The debate is not have we got a clear global warming signal, the debate is what we are going to do about it.”
In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut has established that 20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995.
Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be. “It is taking the first steps, the system is moving in that direction,” Dr Curry said.
“The new ocean study, taken together with the numerous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes. Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected, and being observed now, in the western US.
“The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision-makers.”
because he’s for an expanded global government UN? (This goes without saying)
Now that is just knee-jerk and shows no research. Obama when researched about global government only pops up regarding his global tax on poverty bill. There are many sites re: new world orders etc. And I have been to that rodeo before. Let’s stick to the facts.
…because Obama is a first term Senator, meaning we don’t even have a clear record of who we’re dealing with ?
and Palin?? [among many in history…] Geese. We allowed G.B. to get in and not bitch loud enough to take him out of office… and he was not even in the senate. Give me a break. Hell, and McInsane suffers from PTSD badly, but hey let’s ignore that. Like if we found anyone or anything we didn’t like dealing with, we would all just stand up and make sure they were thrown out or stopped??? Right. We should of been in the streets 8 years ago!! Americans at this point in the game are pathetic. Mouthy, ignorantly opinionated and pathetic.
…because he dodges the new 9/11 investigation issue, and for sure doesn’t speak about it whatsoever? Regardless of your view, it doesn’t take much research to conclude that the 9/11 Commission “investigation” was a total farce, and that the stakes are so high in this regard that to not insist on a full investigation goes beyond mere national suicide.
Three months after the reader sent Obama a correspondence outlining her great concern that criminal elements of the government were directly complicit in the attacks, the Senator sent the following response via email, which was then forwarded to us:
Dear Penny:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your belief that the U.S. government was complicit in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. I appreciate hearing your passionate views on this matter.
While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day. The blunders that occurred prior to the 2001 attacks were inexcusable and often outrageous. The series of clear warnings about the potential use of hijacked planes as weapons is just one example of why the “surprise” of 9/11 should have been anticipated. In my view, proof of government complicity is not necessary when making the argument that the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11.
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
And..
September 16, 2008
ObamaDemocrat Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama has responded to a question posed by an Info wars reader regarding government complicity in the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks.