You are herecontent / 42% of Americans Favor Possible Bush Impeachment

42% of Americans Favor Possible Bush Impeachment


A Zogby poll released today finds 42% of all Americans—including 25% of Republicans—say that "if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment." According to Zogby, in Eastern and Western states supporters of impeachment outnumber opponents.

Zogby also found that Bush’s speech on Tuesday "produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%."

___________________

FROM ZOGBY:

Released: June 30, 2005
No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress—Want Bi-Partisan Solutions—New Zogby Poll

President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.

Just one week ago, President Bush’s job approval stood at a previous low of 44%—but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort. The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President’s address, and the results show no discernible “bump

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

May the light of truth shine on this bunch of thugs and watch the roaches scurry!

I think Bush's approval ratings would be far lower and more people would favor his impeachment on the Downing Street Memos, if all along the main stream media had been covering it all as they should have. (openly and honestly).

Prediction:
spikes in terrorists threats
WMDs suddenly found in Gulag Iraq

Agreed. Exactly.
Look for brand-new, faith-based false alarms-- both here and abroad.

Anything to keep the smokescreen up at home, make Iraq look like Better Homes and Gardens, and keep attention off the Downing Street memos.

You guys are so right. They already did one the other day, a plane was in restricted air space, and they evacuated Congess and it only lasted moments. Sounds fishy to me!!
Most Importantly:
How do we warn the public to be on the lookout for fake terror threats especially now that Blair confirmed the memos???

Sadly though, the stupid ones will still succumb to their fear and go running back to support "shrub." :(

Thanks Harmony RoZe--

These guys are getting so transparent. What is so infuriating is that they don't have a shred of credibilty left. Guess they forgot to read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" in kindergarten. For crying out loud, if you BS and bludgeon our nation into war (even hoodwinking the NYTimes and national press), then you don't have the tiniest leg to stand on. No one believes this administration anymore.

No wonder so few tuned into W's speech the other night. No wonder there's the urge to impeach. Everyone knows that politicians lie-- BUT YOU DON'T LIE AND DRAG A NATION INTO WAR! ESPECIALLY INTO A POWDERKEG CALLED IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST! Especially a war of vanity (Bush family settling scores) or a war with no basis in reality (neocons who have no real war experience, throwing every respected general's opinon out the window, throwing the Powell doctrine out the window, even throwing Brent Scowcrofts dire warning out the window-- Scowcroft worked for Bush Sr.)

W, Cheney, Condi, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld... No credibility. None.

They've subjected our troops to incredible harm in Iraq by their blundering.

And no one can believe this administration's new warnings about errant planes flying into Washington airspace. No credibility. None.

They've let down the country and the constitution. Lying their way into war in Iraq.

Impeach. Impeach. Impeach.

* Here Here

Impeach. Definitely. Impeach W and the rest of the neocons-- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Wolfowitz. They have blood on their hands.

Meanwhile, happy fourth of July,.

Little George Stupid is running scared, his address to the nation, minutely choreographed at an army base, fell flat as he continued to mouth all the old lies. The jig is up, he can't come up with any new lies and the people have finally caught on. All his minions are running around like blathering idiots trying to stem the tide, and they can't come upwith any new lies either.

They are running scared, they know that with a Democratic congress in the coming 2006 election a whole bunch of the rats will go to jail. Expect a run on criminal defense lawyers and paper schredders in the D.C. area at any time.

IMPEACH this sorry, lying, smirking, murdering son of a bitch. We cannot allow him to keep up this war, the torture and the LIES, bold-faced LIES in OUR NAME. This is in our name, does anybody get this? Every time this, for lack of a better word, president utters his latest lie, he or his minions, every person of conscious should inundate the white house, congress, faux-news, the whole repug echo-chambre as well as the corporate-controlled media with phone calls and e-mails letting them know we know whatever they're saying is BULLSHIT and we aren't going to allow it. Now pardon me, but I have some e-mailing to do.

Is there a connection between his executions in Texas and the "executions" in this war? And is a war any way for a born again Christian to behave? Thou shall not kill. True? Or is there an exception for acts of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?

From: http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp06202005.html June 20 2005:

"If I have a Chance to INVADE"

Old News Indeed: In 1999, Bush Craved Opportunity to Attack Iraq

By GARY LEUPP

Some time between January and May 1999 presidential aspirant George W. Bush was talking with Mickey Herskowitz, a former Houston Chronicle sports columnist who'd been signed on to ghostwrite his autobiography. And the future president spoke unto Herskowitz, saying:

"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade---if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Herskowitz was at some point pulled off the autobiography project by Bush's handlers, who thought he wasn't presenting the chosen one in a sufficiently adulatory light. But even if he had stayed on in the job, that honestly ejaculated little Bushism probably wouldn't have gone into the book. Just doesn't look too good when someone running for president of the USA says if he has a chance to invade he won't waste it.

I personally just happened upon it because somebody emailed me this link: http://www.gnn.tv/ It got me to thinking. The proliferating British memos tell us that Bush wanted to invade Iraq, and was prepared to lie to get it done, as of July 2002. The damning content of the Downing Street memo is now augmented by leaked memos from foreign policy advisor David Manning, British ambassador to the U.S. Christopher Meyer, political advisor P. R. Ricketts, and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw written in February and March 2002. All question the rationale for war or point out the difficulties in building a case, while noting that the administration is determined to attack Iraq.

Some in Congress affect to be shocked by these memos, which are certainly welcome news for the antiwar movement because they do constitute a "smoking gun" affirming what some of us have been saying all along. But the Bush supporters aren't wrong in calling their content "old news." Many of us have known all along that Bush's case for war was based on lies; the problem is that some are altogether comfortable with lies if they serve the "strategic imperatives" of U.S. imperialism. And some people have merely been naïve. These are the ones who might be awakened by the memos to the dishonesty and cynical manipulations of the administration.

If the memos become the story they should be, such folks might get downright angry that Bush lied to Congress to get his pro-war resolution in October 2002 and a war killing tens of thousands for no honest reason. And while entering a state of angry enlightenment they may revisit the published statements of Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former White House anti-terrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who have told us Bush wanted his war even earlier---as of January 2001. But now Mickey Herskowitz pulls us way back in time and tells us he wanted it even two years before that!

Over two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking confidentially about using "political capital" to attack Iraq. Recall his more recent use of that interesting expression? Right after the last election, flushed with triumph over his three point victory "mandate," Bush boasted: "I earned capital in the campaign---political capital---and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened after the 2000 election: I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election, and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on."

If Bush could find "capital" in the tainted election of 2000, in which he lost the popular vote, then surely he could find it in the 9-11 tragedy too. That gave him the "chance to invade" he'd told Herskowitz he wouldn't waste. He's gotten most everything he wanted to get passed so far, most notably the PATRIOT Act. That's the great leader's style.

One wants to fault Herskowitz for keeping this conversation with Bush (which must have happened before May 1999) under wraps all this time until sharing it with independent journalist Russ Baker in the last few days. But he's a Bush family friend, after all. That makes the statement even more damning.

"I going to have a successful presidency," declared Bush in 1999, and no doubt he thinks he's successful right now with the plans for imperial expansion on track and the state-corporate merger proceeding apace. But his condescending dismissal of the British memos' significance suggests he may just be too dumb to be successful. His ass is exposed, and he doesn't even know it. He wants "to be seen as a great leader" and thinks he knows the keys to be seen as such. But doesn't he see that that's all gone now?

Sure, some in the crowd look on and applaud the successful president. They see him puffed up in that flight suit that he set aside in 1972 when, he confessed to Herskowitz, the Texas National Guard "excused" him prematurely. They see him strutting in his business suit although he acknowledged to Herskowitz that his business activities were "floundering" before he ran for the presidency. But the little boy in the crowd sees a foolish cocky failure of an emperor, convinced by his handlers that's he looking real GREAT, and pronounced by the onlooking stupid that he is indeed a great leader, but like his minion Jeff Gannon boasting of his prowess on his websites, in reality buck-naked, exposed, obscene.

* * * * *

Unless and until the top 20-30 members of this criminal cabal are tried, convicted, and imprisoned for a minimum of 20 years for war crimes and crimes against humanity the US is and outlaw nation and deserves total economic and political isolation from the rest of the (so-called) civilized world.

From:

http://www.juancole.com/

"The Iraq Avalanche Cannot be Stopped"

by Alan Richards

University of California Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA
June 24, 2005

I have been reading the debate . . . on "What next in Iraq?" ("Unilateral withdrawal? UN forces? Staying the course?") with great interest. There is a way, however, in which I am troubled by what I perceive as a tacit assumption--a very American assumption,--underlying most of the discussion. It seems to me that even "pessimists" are actually "optimists": they assume that there exists in Iraq and the Gulf some "solution", some course of action which can actually lead to an outcome other than widespread, prolonged violence, with devastating economic, political, and social consequences.

I regret to say that I think this is wrong. There is no "solution" to this mess; it is sometimes not possible to "fix" things which have been broken. I can see no course of action which will prevent widespread violence, regional social upheaval, and economic hammering administered by oil price shocks. This is why so many of us opposed the invasion of Iraq so strenuously in the first place! We thought that it would unleash irreversible adverse consequences for (conventionally defined) US interests in the region. I am very sorry to say that I still think we were right.

Let me get specific:

1) As you have often pointed out, our continued presence de-legitimizes the current Iraqi government, which is, in any case, largely a Shiite Islamist and Kurdish tactical alliance. As Patrick Cockburn has pointed out (London Review of Books), the Kurds destabilized Iraq for half a century, and the Sunnis can certainly do the same. No Sunnis, no deal, no way-as you have repeatedly stressed. And the polls, which you courageously cite, which show some 40% of the population backing the insurgents, at least in principle,demonstrates-as you have repeatedly argued-that a large number of Iraqis want us to get out. This means, as you say almost every day, that our current policy ("unilateral presence", if I may call it that) is unsustainable. The insurgents, and many Iraqis, want us out, by any means.Our continued presence cannot succeed.

2) Your scenario for a regional Lebanese or Thirty Years? War style conflict in the wake of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal seems very plausible. Indeed, since I think that the U.S. cannot stay, and since I (regrettably) think that the U.N. option is also not viable (for some of the reasons your correspondents have stated), such a scenario may be the most prescient prediction. But the U.S., as a polity and culture, will simply not sustain this war, not without huge damage to other interests, to the military itself, and to what remains of American democracy. Our continued presence only postpones the evil day, and the U.N. is not, I think, likely to step in.

3) Salafi jihadis and Iran are the big winners in all this-and they hate each other. I can see NO possible way for outsiders to defuse this: not with the U.S. in Iraq, not with the U.N., not with a power vacuum. People from outside the region (U.S., E.U., U.N., India, China, whoever) can do very, very little about this. It seems to me that, as usual, only Muslims can ameliorate the problems of Muslim governance.

4) Finally, there is a tacit assumption in the discussion so far that low oil prices, including current levels, are viable. I don't think this is true, for at least two reasons. A) The terrifying truth is that how we consume energy now both in the U.S. and elsewhere is entirely unsustainable for environmental reasons. Denial is the national past-time on this; and it is deeply destructive. Global warming is a reality, it will get worse, and the consequences will be extremely serious. I now work surrounded by biologists and environmental scientists, many of whom would cheer (even as they paid a heavy price in lost jobs and income) if the price of oil hit $100 a barrel, because they are in a panic about the consequences of our current profligate behavior. B) The jury is still out on the "Hubbert's Peak" or "Peak Oil" hypothesis, but the viewpoint is hardly silly. If it should prove to be correct, oil prices will rise, steeply-until we get serious about fostering the kind of changes in consumption and technology which are necessary, in any case (see A). To repeat: assuming that low oil prices are viable is very dubious at best, and at worst, constitutes a species of denial.

5) Who will pay the price for high oil prices? As you rightly say, poor people, especially in the Global South. Will they know this? Certainly. Will they thank rich countries like us? Hardly. Might this lead to other violent social movements, particularly given all the other problems in the Global South? I can't see why not. Of course, there are ways in principle of dealing with this problem which could minimize the pain. Every competent economist knows the litany of price changes, technology subsidies, and quantitative mandates which we should have implemented, decades ago. We should still do this now, even at this late date. Of course, every indication suggests that the necessary steps will not be taken, thanks, in large part, to American culture and politics. After all, no one, from either party, in the political arena is saying anything even remotely commensurate with the threat which most scientists see to the future of the planet. No one with any power is talking sensibly about energy use, global poverty, and their interrelationships. No one at all.

6) My last pessimistic point: my reading of history is that the only way large changes occur is as responses to large crises. I don't like this, but it seems true to me. And, I hasten to add, change in a crisis is hardly guaranteed to be humane, decent, or to have any claim on our ethical allegiance. We might get a new Roosevelt, but we also might get a new Hitler.

Please don't misunderstand me: I am not advocating regional-crisis-cum-oil-price-spike. I simply think that it is probably unavoidable. If we leave, there will be violence, mayhem, slaughter, and instability, and if we stay there will be violence, mayhem, slaughter, and instability. If there is (as I tend to think) a large crisis looming on the horizon, it will certainly be ugly, even hideous. And then-something else will happen. The one thing I don?t think is possible is to avoid it.

So let me close where I began: I think it is delusional to imagine that there exists a "solution" to the mess in Iraq. From this perspective, the folly of Bush, Cheney and Company in invading Iraq is even worse than most informed observers of the region already think. Starting an avalanche is certainly criminal. It does not follow, however, that such a phenomenon can be stopped once it has begun.

posted by Juan @ 6/30/2005 06:12:00 AM

Bottom line,

BUSH LIED
PEOPLE DIED
MOTHERS CRIED
CONGRESS ROLLED OVER AND SIGHED
TONY BLAIR WENT ALONG FOR THE RIDE
AND THE CORPORATE MEDIA BRUSHED IT ASIDE

IMPEACH THE SON-OF-A-BUSH NOW!!!

. . . and Happy Fourth of July

These people are war criminals! At least twenty of the top people in this criminal regime deserve imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years! It's nowhere near enough that one or two merely lose their jobs - these are crimes against humanity.

Unless and until these people are tried, convicted, and imprisoned, the U.S. is an Outlaw Nation and deserves complete isolation, economic and political, from the rest of the world.

(- totally tongue and cheek . . . don't take this seriously)

How about they are forced to all take "crap jobs" at Burger King and Wal-Mart, forced to drive a third hand Ford Pinto, and they all have to live together in a crappy apartment and MTV makes a "reality
show" out of it. Then we can all see the arrogant little frat-brat
"little Caesars" for who they really are.

Meanwhile, their massive personal fortunes go to fix the mess they
made of millions of people's lives.

Not bad not bad at all! Just let us know what channel!

I know many of these comments are from the young and it makes me smile and feel good....you will take care of this country properly...I know you will.

* I'm for tar and feathers, myself.

A beheading like nick berg perhaps

Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Yes - but the message will carry better if you make sure people understand your motivations - which is the preservation of OUR democracy and constitution.

Red Staters need to know:

That as Republicans, they don't have an oath of loyalty to Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld.

Their loyalty is to:

The Constitution of the USA.

And impeachment will save our great nation.

Absolutely....they've got to know it's more important to be a patriotic American rather than just a patriotic republican.

Bush is hired by and works for the American people. They should not be satisfied with leaders who lie for whatever reason.

Wrong!!! Bush was hired by a consortium of, among others, PNAC, Carylsle, Haliburton, Enron and the Saudi royal family. He works for them, is of them and noone else. THis country is owned and operated by international conglomerates. Most senate dems are in their pockets as well.

You're right...I forgot. Then we're in big trouble.

Dear mr. Bush: Your hands have more blood on them than charlie mansons, you lying rotten son of a bitch, i hope you and all your rotten cronies burn in hell for all the murders you commited.

The following is from the Christian Science Monitor. Coverage is weighted toward Michael Smith, John Pike, and rawstory.com-- in other words, the truth-tellers, raising questions about the legal basis for war and the presidential deceptions before congress and American people.
http://csmonitor.com/2005/0630/dailyUpdate.html

And in another story on June 19th for the Times, Smith reported that another of the leaked documents, a paper on British Foreign Office legal advice, showed that the increased bombing campaign was "illegal" under international law, despite US claims to the contrary.

" ... the leaked Foreign Office legal advice, which was also appended to the Cabinet Office briefing paper for the July [2002] meeting [where the contents of the Downing Street memo were recorded], made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations.

The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime."

You give the Monitor WAY too much credit - I get their print edition, which is seen by many more readers than their website, and they have only had 2 atrocious articles on the DSM. One was a disgusting opinion piece by Michael Kinsley, entited "The Left Gets a Memo", in which the author claimed that the DSM contained nothing new and was no big deal. Mr. Kinsley stated that we already knew Bush's "governing style" was to "fix facts and intelligence around policy". Of course, there was no such acknowledgement of this "governing style" in Mr. Kinsley's pre-war editorials. He also implied that the head of MI-6 might have gotten the wrong impression from meetings with the highest levels of the Bush administration. Yeah, right!
The second piece was by staff writer Peter Grier, and was titled "What the Downing Street Memos Show". This article was possibly even worse than the first, in that it left out key phrases in order to leave a false impression of uncertaintly in the minds of readers. An example is the following quote from the DSM: "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," according to Mr. Dearlove, named in the memo only as "C." "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. Here Mr. Grier leaves out the key phrase "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD". This wouldn't be so bad, except he then goes on to state, "Nor did the document offer details of what intelligence was being fixed around what policy". Gee, I dunno, maybe any intelligence they could, and the policy of removing Saddam through military action?! Grier also leaves out the inconvenient "But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran,"; and the chilling "option" of: "Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli".
I have taken the Monitor to task for their horrendous coverage, and have gotten no explanation. I am considering cancelling my subscription over their handling of this story. Please don't tell me "the Christian Science Monitor" is covering this, because really, they aren't, at least not in the print edition. Rather than credit, the Monitor deserves a spanking.

You are not honoring my fellow soldiers who have died, nor are you honoring me. I was there for 18 months. You guys dont support us. Sorry

Do you accept that your leaders should lie to you? You should have trust in your government and the right to be told the truth and to understand that when they call you to duty they don't do that lightly. Do you ever wonder, was it right for Bush to send you to Iraq? Did it help America?

Do i wonder if it was right? No, i dont wonder at all, i know that Iraq will be a better place because of it. All the freedoms that you have and enjoy (such as being able to speak out against the government) are something they too will now have. Ever think about that?

Are you saying you will trust anyone who lies to you? I usually stop trusting people who lie....call me crazy. The soldiers are doing what they were instructed to do under difficult conditions. But why is it so difficult to understand that supporting soldiers and respecting what they were mislead into doing is completely different than holding Bush accountable for a lie.

What you wonderful soldiers do and what Bush has done are two very different things. You believed in what you were doing and went into it for the right reasons...WMD. You deserve tremendous support. Bush sent you there knowing there were no WMD. He does not deserve support.

Anonymous; My son just got back from 18 mos. in Iraq also , First Cav. 21 FA we all support you for your brave service , as a parent I can't think of a way to support the sacrifices better than letting my only son go to war. Every time he called me to say another of his buddies had died we cried together ,we put up banners with the names and held a small prayer service, even though many complained we were unpatriotic for showing their names in public. We are terrified daily that our young leaders of tomorrow are there . We do this because we don't support an administration that puts you in danger so flippantly . Thank you for serving we love you all .

Are you aiming your "You guys dont support us," at Bush, Cheney, and the neocons? If so I totally agree.

We should honor the soldiers who died in this criminal invasion of Iraq-- honor the soldiers who were pulled away from their crucial missions in Afghanistan hunting the Taliban and bin Laden.

Bin Laden got away thanks to Bush dropping the ball in Afghanistan. The Iraq mission is pointless. The Taliban is back on the prowl in Afghanistan.

The US military is not an institution for settling Bush family grudges. Focus on bin Laden (bring him to justice by any means necessary), bring the troops home from Iraq, and impeach Bush.

Strange logic!

When a fire fighter loses his or her life in a fire that has been set, or if a police officer dies in a fire fight initiated by a criminal
does this dishonor the fire fighter or the police officer?

I do not think so.

We probably honor our soldiers more than President Bush ever has. Nothing is more heart-breaking than hearing the news that an American soldier died in combat. It is a tragedy that all of America feels whenever it happens

We are not protesting the soldiers fighting the war, we are protesting the war and the administration who started it. We honor you and everyone sent to war, remember that. And we want to ensure that those soldiers did not die in vain.

I'm sorry too anon. The only way I see fit to support you, your brothers and sisters, our children, sons and daughters is to call a lie a lie and shout TREASON! from the roof tops. Supporting you does not mean supporting a malignant frat brat who has probably never gotten his hands dirty and had nothing better to do than cook up a reason(s) to send you to fight, die and kill for his weasel vanity. May you live well and be happy. It was not your fault you were betrayed by your president. And if we can bring him to justice, then justice will be done. You did your duty. Thank you from me and mine.

Oh my brave soldier we do support you. My heart has ached for just what you speak of since first realizing just how dishonest Bush was in taking us into Iraq. (Suggested reading "Blind into Baghdad" by James Fallows, The Atlantic Monthly)

Americans support you totally, which is why questions are finally being asked. Questions that should have been asked by the media before going into Iraq. Questions that should have been answered such as those of Senator Lugar from Indiana, how are you going to pay for this? He was ignored. This Pres. made the choice to ignore experts in the military, experts on the Middle East and many others.

Too many of us lived through Viet Nam. (Suggested reading The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam) Too many of us remember the questions that were not answered then and when the answers finally started coming we found sadly how dishonest the best and the brightest had been with Americans and the world.

I support you everyday. I support all of those in my family that are in the military. (Air Force, Navy and Army (West Point) all have served in the Middle East, and all came home.

I have just this morning been talking with my husband and a reporter trying to understand how we help those who have lost family in Iraq? How do we help them understand we do support them, more so than our Pres. You see I do not see cutting Verterans benefits as supporting you, I do not see lack of proper equipment from the beginning as supporting you, I do not see ignoring a General who said we would need at least 200 thousand on the ground as supporting our troops.

My husband reminded me many are still trying to come to terms with the loss of loved ones in Viet Nam not being in vain, and we are having to try and do this again with Iraq. We now have these awful feelings in the pit of our stomachs, the heaviness in our hearts that once again a Pres. has lied to us,and misused our young people in the Military. (Remember within the last year it has been reported that LBJ never thought we could "win" in Viet Nam but escalated that war.

I truly believe this war was planned way ahead of what is said, remember how Paul O'Neil was made fun of for reporting in the first cabnet meeting Bush started talking of how to do it? Grandiose thinking, no vision, unwilling to listen and look where we are.

We thank goodness are becoming more outraged simply because we do support our soldiers.

Thank you for your comments!
Extremely well said.
Especially connected with what you said in the following:

"I have just this morning been talking with my husband and a reporter trying to understand how we help those who have lost family in Iraq? How do we help them understand we do support them, more so than our Pres. You see I do not see cutting Verterans benefits as supporting you, I do not see lack of proper equipment from the beginning as supporting you, I do not see ignoring a General who said we would need at least 200 thousand on the ground as supporting our troops.

My husband reminded me many are still trying to come to terms with the loss of loved ones in Viet Nam not being in vain, and we are having to try and do this again with Iraq. We now have these awful feelings in the pit of our stomachs, the heaviness in our hearts that once again a Pres. has lied to us,and misused our young people in the Military. (Remember within the last year it has been reported that LBJ never thought we could "win" in Viet Nam but escalated that war."

911

- Conspiracy
- Bush Knew
- Main Index
- Prophecy
- Ramifications
Links
Featuring
TruthSeekerTV

MyChildMyChoice
not pro-abortion

Main

- HOME
- Search
- Mission Statement
- Intro
- Branches

Translate
• This Page
• A word

- Activities
- Consecration
- Health Alliance
- Education Alliance
- Laws of Zion
- Kingdom of God
- Core Scriptures

• Forum
• New
• Newsletter
• Page History
Contact

email forwarding:
You@PatriotSaints.com
-- Sign Up --
It's you !!

Articles

Index

- Awake and Arise
(patriot)
- Feed my Sheep
(patriot-saints)
- New Heart
(saints)
- Law & Word
(patriot-saints)

Greater Things
News Service

News Trends
666
Constitution
Visions
Church Firstborn
Bush NWO Insider
Clinton Scandals
World Govt.
Detention Camps
Chip Implants

Sister Sites:

Patriot Saints is
Affiliated with

- RemnantSaints.com
Survival of Remnant
- GreaterThings.com
Spiritual Prep.
- FreeEnergyNews
Donations

You are here: Patriot Saints > News > 911 > Conspiracy > Bush > Warren Buffet

911 Conspiracy
Bush and Buffett Convergence on 911? -- We Demand Some Answers
URL for this page:
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/Bush/buffett.htm

Oct. 12, 2003
Sterling D. Allan

The report below documents that on the morning of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America, before the attack commenced, the world's second most wealthy man was already at the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters where G.W. Bush flew later that day for "safety." As the attack began, Anne Tatlock was already en route to this same location. She arrived at the base to join Buffet in time to watch the second plane make a direct hit on the tower precisely where her office complex was located.

Strange coincidence?

This smacks too much of a conspiracy and begs to be investigated. What was Buffet, a civilian, doing at a military base? Did Buffet and others of his invite meet with Bush when Bush went there later that day? If they did, what was the nature of their meeting? If they claim to not have met, can they provide sworn affidavits, evidence and witnesses proving that they were elsewhere?

Combined with Bush's blatant negligence earlier in the morning at Booker Elementary, the insinuations of a possible meeting with Buffett are grave indeed. They suggest that President George W. Bush was in on inner workings of the planning and execution of the nations worst terrorist attack. These things insinuate that not only did Bush have prior knowledge of the attack, but he was privy to its purposes and intended outcomes such as the anti-Constitutional Patriot Act and the Iraqi war for more control of the Mideast. At a minimum, it appears he was hanging out with those who did.

This information should be thoroughly investigated and made known to every citizen of the United States and every thinking inhabitant of this planet to awaken them to the awful situation we are in.

I am running for President of the United States to replace this conspiratorial oligarchy that has been usurping the freedoms of the land and installing a global police state. See www.allan2004.com Any of the mainline candidates supported by the establishment will only give you more of the same because they will be controlled by the establishment that runs the show from behind the scenes.

Pass this on to everyone you know. Don't expect to see this covered in this way in the mainstream press. You will see from the date stamps of the various news articles below that this information was published in the mainline press a long time ago, but not pieced together or questioned.

Thank God for the Internet and email. Truth can and will prevail if pains are taken to bring it to light.

America is ripe for a revolution at the ballot, as California has shown us -- except this time without Warren Buffet at its side.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Documentation
For historic archive purposes, the following is quoted from
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=45228;title=APFN

Webfairy
Warren Buffet : 911
Sat Oct 11 12:10:39 2003
67.30.13.41

10/10/2003

(To link this page, please use the following address: http://www.geocities.com/killtown/buffett.html)

Warren E. Buffett, the world's 2nd richest person.

So where was Warren Buffett the morning of 9/11 and what was he doing?

Of all places, Mr. Buffett just happened to be at the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters located at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska. Offutt AFB is, coincidentally, where President G.W. Bush flew to on Air Force One later on in the day for "safety". What was Buffett doing there? Mr. Buffett was "hosting a charity event" super early in the morning which included a small group of business leaders in which one of them became a very lucky person.

This person who became very lucky was Ann Tatlock, the CEO of Fiduciary Trust Co. International. Now what made Mrs. Tatlock such a lucky person for being at this event that morning? Mrs. Tatlock works in the World Trade Center and not only that, but her offices were right where Flight 175 crashed into the WTC 2...

► "Anne Tatlock found out about the collision of a plane with the North Tower while en route to the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters in Omaha. The 62-year-old chief executive of Fiduciary Trust Co. International was one of a small group of business leaders at a charity event hosted by Warren Buffett. Military officers boarded the bus she was on, and escorted her to an officer's lounge and a television, just in time to see the second plane hit the South Tower between the 87th and 93rd floors--right where 650 of her employees worked.
Fiduciary, which today manages $44 billion of securities for pension plans, endowments and wealthy individuals..." -Forbes (10/15/01)

► "On the morning of Sept. 11, Tatlock herself had just arrived with a small group of business leaders at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha for a charity event hosted by Warren Buffett. She then heard the news of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center's north tower.
Moments later, back in Omaha, a television picture flashed on a large screen, and Tatlock witnessed the second plane plowing into the south tower.
"There on the screen, I saw the second plane crash into my office," Tatlock recalled." -San Francisco Business Times (week of 2/04/02)

► "Executives of money-management firm Fiduciary Trust Inc., a unit of Franklin Resources Inc., said many of the 500 employees who worked in the complex had gotten out, but officials didn't have an exact count. "We've been incredibly lucky; people we knew were in there got out," said Anne Tatlock, the firm's chairman and chief executive.
Fiduciary Trust, which occupied five floors that were located high in the South Tower, caters to investors of substantial net worth and used its elegant offices to help woo clients, who often paused to admire the amazing views when they visited.
Ms. Tatlock was in Omaha, Neb., at a conference sponsored by Warren Buffett when she heard about the disaster. "I thought, why would they joke, then I saw the TV," she said. -Wall Street Journal (9/12/01)

► 3:07 p.m. – Bush arrives at U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. -September11News.com

► The United States Strategic Command, or USSTRATCOM, is headquartered at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.

Now why was the 2nd richest man in the world hosting a charity event so earlier in the morning at the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters that particular day and what are the odds that a CEO was invited who's offices were right where one of the hijacked airplanes crashed into?
Some other questions that arise from this "charity event" is:

1. What was this charity event about?

2. Who were the rest of the business leaders that attended, why were they invited, and who invited them?

An interesting angle about Ann Tatlock's company, Fiduciary Trust Co. International, is that President Bush's nominee to head the panel that's investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, Thomas Kean, used to serve as the company's director which has a lot of wealthy clients...

► President Bush named former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a moderate Republican with a record of bipartisan cooperation, to replace Henry Kissinger as head of the panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
He serves on several corporate boards, including those of the international petroleum company Amerada Hess Corp., the Pepsi Bottling Group and Aramark Corp., which manages food and support services at office buildings, sports arenas and other facilities.
Aramark ran the food court on top of 2 World Trade Center as well as concessions and tours of the observation deck. Several of its employees died in the tower. Also, Kean has long served as director of Fiduciary Trust Co., a financial company that lost 87 employees in the World Trade Center.
Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband died in the trade center Sept. 11 while working for Fiduciary Trust and who is a leader of September 11th Advocates, said about Kean, "Assuming he has no conflicts, I hope he can do the job that needs to be done."
Breitweiser noted that Fiduciary was a leaseholder of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which would be part of the investigation. -USA Today (12/16/02)

► BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY INTERNATIONAL
THOMAS H. KEAN: PRESIDENT, DREW UNIVERSITY AND FORMER GOVERNOR, NJ

► "Ellen Kratzer, an investment advisor who worked near the top of the World Trade Center's south tower, returned to work yesterday morning, at her firm's "business resumption centre" in New Jersey.
More than 100 people are missing from her firm, Fiduciary Trust Co. International, yet she and her colleagues were phoning clients to let them know business is continuing. These are wealthy investors with a lot at stake -- Fiduciary's average client family has more than US$10-million in assets." -Raven Investment (9/15/01)

One interesting note about Ann Tatlock is that she is a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) along with former Secretary of State and current Carlyle Group advisor James A. Baker III who's law firm, Baker Botts LLP, is defending Saudi Arabia against the trillion dollar lawsuit filed by the families of 9/11 victims. HHMI also employed Don C. Wiley, one of the dozen distinguished microbiologists that have mysteriously died within five months of each other shortly after 9/11.

► "Anne M. Tatlock, chairman and chief executive officer of Fiduciary Trust Company International, has been elected a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)." -HHMI (1/25/01)
"James A. Baker III, secretary of state under George Bush and secretary of the treasury under Ronald Reagan, has been elected a Trustee of HHMI.
Baker is a senior partner in the law firm of Baker & Botts." -HHMI (2/01/96)

HHMI Trustees

► The Carlyle Group - James A. Baker III

► August 16, 2002 - The families of 9/11 victims launch a trillion dollar lawsuit against Saudi Arabia who is being defended by former Secretary of State James A. Baker's law firm Baker Botts LLP. - See Killtown's 9/11 Oddities page

► The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) today announced that it is offering a $15,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and charge of anyone connected to the disappearance of Dr. Don C. Wiley, an HHMI investigator at Harvard University.
Wiley, a distinguished structural biologist who has been an HHMI employee since 1987..." -HHMI (11/30/01)

► The disappearance of a Harvard molecular biologist has baffled authorities and sparked some suspicion that he was abducted to create a lethal biological weapon.
Don Wiley was last seen Nov. 15, when he attended a banquet at The Peabody hotel in Memphis, Tenn. Wiley lived in Cambridge, Mass.
Newspapers in Boston raised suspicions that Wiley was the victim of a terrorist-related kidnapping because of recent anthrax scares, fears of bioterrorism, and the fact that he is an expert on human immunology and has studied viruses such as AIDS, Ebola, herpes and influenza. -ABC (11/27/01)

► "A body carrying the identification of a missing Harvard University scientist was found today in the Mississippi River in Louisiana, police said.
Wiley had done research into a number of potentially deadly viruses, including Ebola. Ebola is a hemorrhagic fever that causes body fluids to seep from tissues and orifices. The virus is highly contagious and lethal, and there is no vaccine." -ABC (12/20/01)

► "Eleven microbiologists mysteriously dead over the span of just five months. Some of them world leaders in developing weapons-grade biological plagues. Others the best in figuring out how to stop millions from dying because of biological weapons. Still others, experts in the theory of bioterrorism." - Globe and Mail (5/04/02)

So who is Warren Buffett and what does he do?

► Warren Edward Buffett
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer at Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Omaha, Nebraska
FINANCIAL / INSURANCE

Net Worth: $36.0 billion

Marital Status: married , 3 children

Undergraduate: University of Nebraska Lincoln, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Graduate: Columbia University, Masters of Science

Mr. Buffett, age 72, has been a director of the Corporation since 1965 and has been its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since 1970. Mr. Buffett is a controlling person of the Corporation. He is also a director of The Coca-Cola Company, The Gillette Company, and The Washington Post Company.

#2 - The Richest People In America - The Forbes 400 - 2003

#2 - The World's Richest People - 2003

-Forbes.com

Funny that Mr. Buffett was hosting a charity event, because it's been reported that he's a real "tightwad" and not very charitable...

► "By many he is considered to be a real tightwad (or cheap). This is mainly because despite his $36 Billion net worth he has not been particularly charitable." -Investopedia.com

Now if Warren Buffett hosting a "charity event" at the U.S. Strategic Commander headquarters on 9/11 in which one of the invited guests was a CEO who's offices were where the 2nd hijacked plane crashed into at the WTC and that the head of the 9/11 investigation used to be the director of her company doesn't raise an eyebrow or two, then maybe the following little tidbits will.

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has a subsidiary company called NetJets...

► BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. Subsidiary Companies: NetJets®

► NetJets Inc. (Formerly Executive Jet)
NETJETS INC AND BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY
In 1995, world-renowned financier Warren Buffett purchased his first fractional share in the NetJets® program. Three-and-a-half years later, Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway purchased NetJets Inc.

"As a NetJets fractional aircraft Owner, I had Three-and-a-half years to examine the service of NetJets before Berkshire Hathaway purchased NetJets Inc. We knew we were purchasing the premier provider of aviation solutions in the world. And you can quote me to the world on that."
- WARREN BUFFETT, Chairman and CEO Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The NetJets Fleet

Oddly enough, a NetJets executive company jet was "tracking" Flight 93 when it crashed in an open field in Shanksville, PA.

► "Additional recordings would be played from the cockpit of an executive jet that tracked Flight 93 on Sept. 11...
An official for NetJets, a company that sells shares in private business aircraft, confirmed that the plane tracking Flight 93 belonged to the company.
The official, who asked not to be identified by name, said the company was asked not to comment on the Sept. 11 flight but would not say who made the request." -Holland Sentinel/AP (8/09/02)

Now why was an executive jet owned by one of Warren Buffett's companies "tracking" Flight 93 instead of a military jet try to intercept it?
More interesting is that fact that Flight 93 was rumored to have been shot down (in which the U.S. Government vehemently denies) and that a number of witnesses claimed to have seen a "mysterious small white jet" in the same area that Flight 93 was before it crashed in which the FBI claimed there was no other plane in the area and then changed it's story and said there was one, but it was just "taking pictures" of the crash.

► "Responding to persistent rumors that have circulated around the nation, the North American Aerospace Defense Command disputed accounts yesterday that U.S. military aircraft shot down United Airlines Flight 93 in Somerset County.
"Contrary to media reports that speculate that United Airlines Flight 93 was 'downed' by a U.S. fighter aircraft, NORAD-allocated forces have not engaged with weapons [on] any aircraft, including Flight 93."
"There was no military involvement here. I hope that ends that speculation," FBI agent Bill Crowley told reporters yesterday during an afternoon briefing at the crash site.
Asked if there were any military aircraft flying in the vicinity of Flight 93 or activated in response to the hijacking of the plane, Capt. Adriane Craig, a NORAD spokeswoman, declined comment." -Post-Gazette (9/14/01)

► Dennis Decker and Rick Chaney - "As soon as we looked up, we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast," Decker said. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out." Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)
Susan Mcelwain, 51 - "It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled.
"There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.
"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around."
"Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up."
"But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."
"She said her husband had called her that morning and said 'I can't talk, but we've just shot a plane down,' " Susan said. "I presumed they meant Flight 93." -Daily Mirror (9/13/02)

► "Earlier Thursday, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken. He dismissed rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, President Bush's nominee for chairman of the joint chiefs of staff rejected rumors that the military had shot down the hijacked plane.
"The armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft," Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said." -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

For more about the mystery surrounding Flight 93, see "Was Flight 93 shot down?"

Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. also has a subsidiary company called FlightSafety International Inc., a flight training school ...

► BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. Subsidiary Companies: FlightSafety

► FlightSafety International Inc.
"FlightSafety International is the world's largest provider of aviation services, training over 65,000 pilots annually at 42 Learning Centers in the U.S., Canada, France, and the U.K."

Flight Safety was also selected by Raytheon as its subcontractor providing the Ground Based Training System for the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) used by the US Air Force and navy for primary pilot training.

FlightSafety International Inc. is reported to have trained one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers...
Webfairy
Warren Buffet : 911
Sat Oct 11 12:10:39 2003
67.30.13.41

10/10/2003

(To link this page, please use the following address: http://www.geocities.com/killtown/buffett.html)

Warren E. Buffett, the world's 2nd richest person.

So where was Warren Buffett the morning of 9/11 and what was he doing?

Of all places, Mr. Buffett just happened to be at the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters located at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska. Offutt AFB is, coincidentally, where President G.W. Bush flew to on Air Force One later on in the day for "safety". What was Buffett doing there? Mr. Buffett was "hosting a charity event" super early in the morning which included a small group of business leaders in which one of them became a very lucky person.

This person who became very lucky was Ann Tatlock, the CEO of Fiduciary Trust Co. International. Now what made Mrs. Tatlock such a lucky person for being at this event that morning? Mrs. Tatlock works in the World Trade Center and not only that, but her offices were right where Flight 175 crashed into the WTC 2...

► "Anne Tatlock found out about the collision of a plane with the North Tower while en route to the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters in Omaha. The 62-year-old chief executive of Fiduciary Trust Co. International was one of a small group of business leaders at a charity event hosted by Warren Buffett. Military officers boarded the bus she was on, and escorted her to an officer's lounge and a television, just in time to see the second plane hit the South Tower between the 87th and 93rd floors--right where 650 of her employees worked.
Fiduciary, which today manages $44 billion of securities for pension plans, endowments and wealthy individuals..." -Forbes (10/15/01)

► "On the morning of Sept. 11, Tatlock herself had just arrived with a small group of business leaders at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha for a charity event hosted by Warren Buffett. She then heard the news of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center's north tower.
Moments later, back in Omaha, a television picture flashed on a large screen, and Tatlock witnessed the second plane plowing into the south tower.
"There on the screen, I saw the second plane crash into my office," Tatlock recalled." -San Francisco Business Times (week of 2/04/02)

► "Executives of money-management firm Fiduciary Trust Inc., a unit of Franklin Resources Inc., said many of the 500 employees who worked in the complex had gotten out, but officials didn't have an exact count. "We've been incredibly lucky; people we knew were in there got out," said Anne Tatlock, the firm's chairman and chief executive.
Fiduciary Trust, which occupied five floors that were located high in the South Tower, caters to investors of substantial net worth and used its elegant offices to help woo clients, who often paused to admire the amazing views when they visited.
Ms. Tatlock was in Omaha, Neb., at a conference sponsored by Warren Buffett when she heard about the disaster. "I thought, why would they joke, then I saw the TV," she said. -Wall Street Journal (9/12/01)

► 3:07 p.m. – Bush arrives at U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. -September11News.com

► The United States Strategic Command, or USSTRATCOM, is headquartered at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.

Now why was the 2nd richest man in the world hosting a charity event so earlier in the morning at the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters that particular day and what are the odds that a CEO was invited who's offices were right where one of the hijacked airplanes crashed into?
Some other questions that arise from this "charity event" is:

1. What was this charity event about?

2. Who were the rest of the business leaders that attended, why were they invited, and who invited them?

An interesting angle about Ann Tatlock's company, Fiduciary Trust Co. International, is that President Bush's nominee to head the panel that's investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, Thomas Kean, used to serve as the company's director which has a lot of wealthy clients...

► President Bush named former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a moderate Republican with a record of bipartisan cooperation, to replace Henry Kissinger as head of the panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
He serves on several corporate boards, including those of the international petroleum company Amerada Hess Corp., the Pepsi Bottling Group and Aramark Corp., which manages food and support services at office buildings, sports arenas and other facilities.
Aramark ran the food court on top of 2 World Trade Center as well as concessions and tours of the observation deck. Several of its employees died in the tower. Also, Kean has long served as director of Fiduciary Trust Co., a financial company that lost 87 employees in the World Trade Center.
Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband died in the trade center Sept. 11 while working for Fiduciary Trust and who is a leader of September 11th Advocates, said about Kean, "Assuming he has no conflicts, I hope he can do the job that needs to be done."
Breitweiser noted that Fiduciary was a leaseholder of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which would be part of the investigation. -USA Today (12/16/02)

► BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY INTERNATIONAL
THOMAS H. KEAN: PRESIDENT, DREW UNIVERSITY AND FORMER GOVERNOR, NJ

► "Ellen Kratzer, an investment advisor who worked near the top of the World Trade Center's south tower, returned to work yesterday morning, at her firm's "business resumption centre" in New Jersey.
More than 100 people are missing from her firm, Fiduciary Trust Co. International, yet she and her colleagues were phoning clients to let them know business is continuing. These are wealthy investors with a lot at stake -- Fiduciary's average client family has more than US$10-million in assets." -Raven Investment (9/15/01)

One interesting note about Ann Tatlock is that she is a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) along with former Secretary of State and current Carlyle Group advisor James A. Baker III who's law firm, Baker Botts LLP, is defending Saudi Arabia against the trillion dollar lawsuit filed by the families of 9/11 victims. HHMI also employed Don C. Wiley, one of the dozen distinguished microbiologists that have mysteriously died within five months of each other shortly after 9/11.

► "Anne M. Tatlock, chairman and chief executive officer of Fiduciary Trust Company International, has been elected a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)." -HHMI (1/25/01)
"James A. Baker III, secretary of state under George Bush and secretary of the treasury under Ronald Reagan, has been elected a Trustee of HHMI.
Baker is a senior partner in the law firm of Baker & Botts." -HHMI (2/01/96)

HHMI Trustees

► The Carlyle Group - James A. Baker III

► August 16, 2002 - The families of 9/11 victims launch a trillion dollar lawsuit against Saudi Arabia who is being defended by former Secretary of State James A. Baker's law firm Baker Botts LLP. - See Killtown's 9/11 Oddities page

► The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) today announced that it is offering a $15,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and charge of anyone connected to the disappearance of Dr. Don C. Wiley, an HHMI investigator at Harvard University.
Wiley, a distinguished structural biologist who has been an HHMI employee since 1987..." -HHMI (11/30/01)

► The disappearance of a Harvard molecular biologist has baffled authorities and sparked some suspicion that he was abducted to create a lethal biological weapon.
Don Wiley was last seen Nov. 15, when he attended a banquet at The Peabody hotel in Memphis, Tenn. Wiley lived in Cambridge, Mass.
Newspapers in Boston raised suspicions that Wiley was the victim of a terrorist-related kidnapping because of recent anthrax scares, fears of bioterrorism, and the fact that he is an expert on human immunology and has studied viruses such as AIDS, Ebola, herpes and influenza. -ABC (11/27/01)

► "A body carrying the identification of a missing Harvard University scientist was found today in the Mississippi River in Louisiana, police said.
Wiley had done research into a number of potentially deadly viruses, including Ebola. Ebola is a hemorrhagic fever that causes body fluids to seep from tissues and orifices. The virus is highly contagious and lethal, and there is no vaccine." -ABC (12/20/01)

► "Eleven microbiologists mysteriously dead over the span of just five months. Some of them world leaders in developing weapons-grade biological plagues. Others the best in figuring out how to stop millions from dying because of biological weapons. Still others, experts in the theory of bioterrorism." - Globe and Mail (5/04/02)

So who is Warren Buffett and what does he do?

► Warren Edward Buffett
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer at Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Omaha, Nebraska
FINANCIAL / INSURANCE

Net Worth: $36.0 billion

Marital Status: married , 3 children

Undergraduate: University of Nebraska Lincoln, Bachelor of Arts / Science
Graduate: Columbia University, Masters of Science

Mr. Buffett, age 72, has been a director of the Corporation since 1965 and has been its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since 1970. Mr. Buffett is a controlling person of the Corporation. He is also a director of The Coca-Cola Company, The Gillette Company, and The Washington Post Company.

#2 - The Richest People In America - The Forbes 400 - 2003

#2 - The World's Richest People - 2003

-Forbes.com

Funny that Mr. Buffett was hosting a charity event, because it's been reported that he's a real "tightwad" and not very charitable...

► "By many he is considered to be a real tightwad (or cheap). This is mainly because despite his $36 Billion net worth he has not been particularly charitable." -Investopedia.com

Now if Warren Buffett hosting a "charity event" at the U.S. Strategic Commander headquarters on 9/11 in which one of the invited guests was a CEO who's offices were where the 2nd hijacked plane crashed into at the WTC and that the head of the 9/11 investigation used to be the director of her company doesn't raise an eyebrow or two, then maybe the following little tidbits will.

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has a subsidiary company called NetJets...

► BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. Subsidiary Companies: NetJets®

► NetJets Inc. (Formerly Executive Jet)
NETJETS INC AND BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY
In 1995, world-renowned financier Warren Buffett purchased his first fractional share in the NetJets® program. Three-and-a-half years later, Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway purchased NetJets Inc.

"As a NetJets fractional aircraft Owner, I had Three-and-a-half years to examine the service of NetJets before Berkshire Hathaway purchased NetJets Inc. We knew we were purchasing the premier provider of aviation solutions in the world. And you can quote me to the world on that."
- WARREN BUFFETT, Chairman and CEO Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The NetJets Fleet

Oddly enough, a NetJets executive company jet was "tracking" Flight 93 when it crashed in an open field in Shanksville, PA.

► "Additional recordings would be played from the cockpit of an executive jet that tracked Flight 93 on Sept. 11...
An official for NetJets, a company that sells shares in private business aircraft, confirmed that the plane tracking Flight 93 belonged to the company.
The official, who asked not to be identified by name, said the company was asked not to comment on the Sept. 11 flight but would not say who made the request." -Holland Sentinel/AP (8/09/02)

Now why was an executive jet owned by one of Warren Buffett's companies "tracking" Flight 93 instead of a military jet try to intercept it?
More interesting is that fact that Flight 93 was rumored to have been shot down (in which the U.S. Government vehemently denies) and that a number of witnesses claimed to have seen a "mysterious small white jet" in the same area that Flight 93 was before it crashed in which the FBI claimed there was no other plane in the area and then changed it's story and said there was one, but it was just "taking pictures" of the crash.

► "Responding to persistent rumors that have circulated around the nation, the North American Aerospace Defense Command disputed accounts yesterday that U.S. military aircraft shot down United Airlines Flight 93 in Somerset County.
"Contrary to media reports that speculate that United Airlines Flight 93 was 'downed' by a U.S. fighter aircraft, NORAD-allocated forces have not engaged with weapons [on] any aircraft, including Flight 93."
"There was no military involvement here. I hope that ends that speculation," FBI agent Bill Crowley told reporters yesterday during an afternoon briefing at the crash site.
Asked if there were any military aircraft flying in the vicinity of Flight 93 or activated in response to the hijacking of the plane, Capt. Adriane Craig, a NORAD spokeswoman, declined comment." -Post-Gazette (9/14/01)

► Dennis Decker and Rick Chaney - "As soon as we looked up, we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast," Decker said. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out." Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)
Susan Mcelwain, 51 - "It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled.
"There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.
"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around."
"Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up."
"But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."
"She said her husband had called her that morning and said 'I can't talk, but we've just shot a plane down,' " Susan said. "I presumed they meant Flight 93." -Daily Mirror (9/13/02)

► "Earlier Thursday, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken. He dismissed rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, President Bush's nominee for chairman of the joint chiefs of staff rejected rumors that the military had shot down the hijacked plane.
"The armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft," Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said." -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

For more about the mystery surrounding Flight 93, see "Was Flight 93 shot down?"

Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. also has a subsidiary company called FlightSafety International Inc., a flight training school ...

► BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. Subsidiary Companies: FlightSafety

► FlightSafety International Inc.
"FlightSafety International is the world's largest provider of aviation services, training over 65,000 pilots annually at 42 Learning Centers in the U.S., Canada, France, and the U.K."

Flight Safety was also selected by Raytheon as its subcontractor providing the Ground Based Training System for the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) used by the US Air Force and navy for primary pilot training.

FlightSafety International Inc. is reported to have trained one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also
Fudiciary Trust Co. International - official website
Anne M. Tatlock, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Warren Buffett is Schwartznegger's economic advisor - Google news engine.
"Sterling D. Allan" in the news - as of the time of this writing, yields null results because this kind of news is taboo for the mainline press which is controlled by the establishment.
"An Interesting Day": President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11 (By Allan Wood and Paul Thompson)
HIGH TREASON: Bush' Complicit Role in 911 Attack - index
911 Conspiracy - General index
Bush Knew, and Did Nothing - brief timeline and images from morning of 911.

Page posted by SDA on Oct. 12, 2003
Last updated on October 14, 2003

"That there may be no poor among us."

www.PatriotSaints.com
Copyright © 2000-2004 Patriot Saints

Home • Mission Statement • Branches • Calendar • Activity • Forum • Contact
Health Alliance • Education Alliance

Greater Things • Remnant Saints • International Patriot Alliance • Inter-Continental Congress

Right, because I am sure the author of "Blind into Baghdad" was there, i am sure he was right there with me as we took Baghdad, saved millions of people and made the world a better place. Right, and i am sure your family, (btw, west point does NOT equal good officer, sorry) But all thats ok, we are there, we are not leaving and history history will prove me (and the rest of the military, CIA, etc) correct about Iraq.

Cheers!

There seems to be some sentiment even for those vehemently against this illegal war, that the American soldier is somehow beyond criticism. At some point you have to take responsibility for your actions. I honour the soldier that finds his/he conscience and refuses to participate in this imperial misadventure You are a tool for a bunch of draft dodging rich men who couldn't care less about you or about your sacrifice.

Well, guess what, we are beyond criticism so long as we are acting legally, within our mandate. And, the ones who disagree should be tried, convicted and put in jail for failing to follow a military order. Those soldiers are worthless.

True but in the end, you have to be able to sleep at night.

Its not that we dont support the troops! We don't suport the Bush regime. We understand that the troops are following orders and thats what they have to do.

Impeach the summ-mum-ma bitch!

BUSH NOT ONLY KNEW THERE WERE NO WMDS IN IRAQ-- HE WAS THE PRIMARY ARCHITECT OF 911. IMPEACHMENT FOR HIGH TREASON AND GENOCIDE IS INEVITABLE.

I find that hard to believe. I've heard other people accuse Bush of committing the 9/11 attacks, but still have yet to see any concrete evidence that it's true.

Bush did ignore warnings that 9/11 was about to happen, true. Also true that he missed six opportunities to capture or kill Usama bin Laden before 9/11 took place. Finally, also true that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to launch his illegal invasion of Iraq. But I don't believe that constitutes being behind 9/11. Wasn't bin Laden responsible, or is he another innocent victim of Bush's policies?

If I can see some evidence to prove Bush was responsible, I'll believe you. But until then I'll only believe that he is an irresponsible idiot who deliberately ignored warnings and lied to the public to build support for a war in Iraq.

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
9/11 Visibility Project
Sunday, May 22, 2005

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.

You write: I find that hard to believe. I've heard other people accuse Bush of committing the 9/11 attacks, but still have yet to see any concrete evidence that it's true.

I am with you in finding it hard to believe, and I hope that most Americans find it hard to believe. I fully agree that the DSMs raise serious questions, and that a full, honest inquiry is necessary for salvaging what many of us believe to be great about America (viz., the opportunity to have honest inquiry and just decisions). But while there has never been any serious issue (in my mind) that the DSMs raise very serious issues, I always thought that the `Bush was behind 9/11' to be too hard to believe. And I still don't believe it. That said, I now see that there are equally serious questions about 9/11. What changed my mind was the brief (well, 60min or so) video entitled `Painful Deceptions'. I am in no way saying that I believe that Bush &Co. were behind 9/11, but I can clearly see that there are enough wide open questions and apparent coincidences that make it plausible---horrible to accept, terrible to believe, but none the less plausible. What is so sad is the extent to which none of the pressing questions or apparent coincidences have been given due attention.

My main comment here is that I entirely agree with you that it's difficult to believe that Bush was behind 9/11. And I also agree that perhaps as yet there's insufficient evidence that Bush (or Co.) was (were) behind 9/11. None the less, you'll quickly see, as I did, that there are conspicuously unanswered questions and apparent coincidences that cry out for answers and explanations. That we, as inquiring Americans, have been given nothing by way of answers or explanations is itself in pressing need of explanation. And that's the horrible state (or, at least, an example of the horrible state) of our current situation in America.

You can download `Painful Deceptions' here: 911busters. I don't like the `911busters' title of the page, but I fully understand the anger and frustration that motivates such a title. If you have time, you should also download `discussion in firehouse' after viewing `Painful Deceptions'. (I haven't watched the others.)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.