 |
|
Add to My Group
|
February 22, 2007 at 11:02:03
Masterminds of 9-11- IMPEACH THEM! by Carol Wolman Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
If people understood that 9-11 was a criminal conspiracy, a lethal hoax orchestrated by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, the outrage would be great enough to force Congress to impeach.
If we examine what each man was doing that day, one must conclude that they were all part of a plot to stage a "false flag" operation, to lay the groundwork for the rest of their evil plans. If 3000 people had to die,- oh well, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
Bush, the pResident, target #1, the Decider, was not surprised. So he must have had prior knowledge. He was sitting unprotected in an elementary school classroom, reading "My pet goat", and went on doing that for 30 minutes after being told "we're under attack". Evidently the Secret Service was not worried about his safety, so they knew it wasn't an enemy attack. Evidently Bush didn't feel the need to take command, get on the phone to NORAD and assess the situation, scramble fighter jets to intercept the other 3 planes, which were quickly identified as being off course... The Commander-in-Chief was either derelict in his duty or in on the plot. Either way, he should be impeached.
Dick Cheney, the Vice pResident, was in the Situation Room of the White House, monitoring a CIA simulation of planes crashing into buildings "by a bizarre coincidence". The Pentagon was also conducting several live-fly hijacking exercises that day, so the sky was full of pilots playing war games. Probably Cheney was orchestrating all of these plus the four planes that were part of the 9-11 "attack". Certainly Cheney, sitting in the Situation Room, was in a position to see the hijackers and intervene, and didn't. So he's either derelict in his duty, or the mastermind. Certainly impeachable, either way.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was sitting in his office in the Pentagon, on the side away from the "attack", which occurred AFTER both towers were hit. When the Pentagon was struck, he sauntered out, and claimed that he had no idea what was going on! No one called the Secretary of Defense? Especially since on June 1, 2001, just 3 months earlier, he had had the rules about scrambling fighter jets changed, in such a way that no interceptions could take place without HIS PERSONAL APPROVAL! And no one tried to reach him? Or he was unreachable? Either he was derelict or part of the plot. Either way, it's criminal.
All three of these men were responsible for defending the US from enemy attack, and utterly failed to do so. In the Navy, a captain who loses a ship is automatically court-martialled. Shouldn't these three men be subjected to a military tribunal, to account for losing three buildings, 3000 lives, and part of the Pentagon? For their failure to take appropriate countermeasures?
How likely is it that all three of these key people were derelict? Isn't it much more likely that they were conspiring together? Why won't our elected Representatives in Congress IMPEACH THEM?
In the name of the God of truth,
Carol Wolman
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 29 comments |
|
only 9/11 truth can end the wars!
thank you so much for this... 9/11 is the foundational event for all of the atrocities that followed. until the ineffectual peace groups can get this through their heads, nothing will change. they can try to marginalize and leave us out of their rallies & talks, but we're the ones making active change happen! put down 'the nation,' turn off 'air america' & democracy now! & break out of the phony left-right paradigm! thanks again carol... by media monarchy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:15:59 AM  (0+)
|
|
Always Amazed
The obvious is so often ignored or simply dismissed and what would be substituted is what one wants to believe or told to believe. I remember clearly what I said and thought watching the towers fall. My first thoughts where they've bombed the towers. And the "they" I was thinking about wasn't any foreign entity. Since that day I watched in amazement as people around me started swallowing the tripe being feed to us through the corporate media telling us what we saw and what we should believe. I'm not totally convinced on many of the far reaching conspiracy theories, but I am convinced about one thing, the official version of what happened on 9/11 is bullshit, and that a full independent investigation is needed. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [657 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:12:19 PM (0+)
|
|
I don't disagree, but think 9-11 should not be the main
focus in making the case for impeachment. Other issues which are less controversial & easier for the public to grasp without intensive study (ie, the nonexistent WMD; invading a sovereign nation based on a lie; war crimes with massive civilian casualties; torture; violations of the Constitution; defying the electorate with the "surge"; Katrina etc) -- all these things are pretty easy to understand. They're relatively well-established matters of fact, & they alone would justify impeachment many times over. The case could include an examination of 9-11, but I don't think it should center on it. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:39:28 PM (0+)
|
|
IMPEACH THE TERRORISTS!
...should be our slogan. by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 313 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 1:38:26 PM (0+)
|
|
thanks ++
Thanks, I hope that logical statements can lead even politicians, since the other citizens seem to know, but what if the politicians can be so independent, should not we then take back the control on our rights? Yes indeed, there is some thing better than all those rulers of states, you can even Google it: constitution of its citizens. by namzezam (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 2:24:07 PM (0+)
|
|
But Carol
Nancy has told you plainly that impeachment is off the table......Why do you persist in embarrassing the Democrats by insisting that justice be served? Hell these phonies are really just a part of the problem, we all must stop looking to them for solutions! by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 4:38:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Right on Carol!
Has anybody else noticed that there are a LOT fewer negative responses to articles like this these days? Where have all the "debunkers" gone? Are they waking up? Coming around? Finally investigating the facts? Let's hope so. The best way to put out the raging Bushco fire that is destroying our country and threatening the world is to start blasting water at the source of it all, which of course is 9/11. If there any patriots left inside the Beltway, they need to understand that they must start working toward a full criminal investigation of 9/11 immediately. How about it you Beltway folks? The vast majority of Americans believe there is a coverup of the 9/11 facts. Show some love for your country by demanding a quest for the whole truth, and your country will show some love for you the next time you come asking for their vote. by John Perry (31 articles, 32 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 5:12:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Continue to occupy legislative offices
This message needs to be trumpeted to every one in our House of Represenatives. There have been a few occupations of offices of Represenatives conserning funding this illegal War. This should increase and the crowds need to grow. Coordinating these occupations with 9/11 Truth issues and Impeachment Now issues would increase the crows and the occupations. by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 313 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 6:03:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Impeachment is out of the question.
I find it beyond belief that anyone with a modicum of sense or logic would even consider impeaching the president or his vice. We are talking about criminals who have desecrated the Constitution, murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, have and continue to loot the public treasury. Yet you pantywaist do-gooders have the self-righteousnous indignation to discuss impeachment?? Our country is embraced in the iron fist of fascism and you would discuss slapping the perpetrators on the wrists? This behavior is what brought our great Republic to its knees and it is being perpetrated by not only the Bush supporters but the supporters of the Democratic pretenders who have duped the citizenry into believing that they are the saviors who will stop this train wreck. There is no time for nice little things like impeachment. The perps need to placed in chains, brought to trial before a real American jury, and then hanged for treason against the Constitution of the United States of America. This includes the current administration and cabinet and a good portion of congress. Anything less is just another feel good exercise in futility by a spineless electorate. by Steve (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 6:50:57 PM (0+)
|
|
9/11
I agree with your article and hope it will inspire people that are more courageous than I am to take action. by Henry Dreher (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 7:51:56 PM (0+)
|
|
CAROL...
Nice job. My thoughts exactly, well almost... Keep throwing kerosene on this fire, keep their feet to the heat, and I mean the Democrats as well. Eventually something will wake up Nancy Pelosi. Something must. God Bless, good piece.Pete Bagnolo by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 8:45:23 PM (0+)
|
|
CAROL...
Nice job. My thoughts exactly, well almost... Keep throwing kerosene on this fire, keep their feet to the heat, and I mean the Democrats as well. Eventually something will wake up Nancy Pelosi. Something must. God Bless, good piece.Pete Bagnolo by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 8:45:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Carol . . .
One has to wonder what's going on. It's been nearly four months since the election. Pelosi said she had no intention to impeach. I guess that marked the first honest statement coming out of D.C. since 1945. Without impeachment we are setting a precedent to lose our republic. Pelosi is sending a written invitation to future presidents of either party to continue on with "signing statements" and total ignorance of our Constitution. It makes one wonder if the "loyal opposition" knows something the electorate does not. Here's my thoughts: click here by Dusty Nathan (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 71 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 9:00:51 PM (0+)
|
|
A lot of good points
...both in the article and the comments. I also felt like Com_n_Sense did when I first saw the live images of 911 on TV. I even said to my father next to me, 'Watch them pin this one on Bin Ladin.' My father wouldn't discuss the issue, but I knew he shared my suspicions. And johnperry is correct to point out there are fewer and fewer 'debunked already' posts after articles such as this one. Perhaps this plot just had too many suspicious loose ends to tie up. And conchy is right too. Impeachment is for crimes of corruption, not crimes against humanity. It would be nice if people spoke more of treason and less of impeachment. And the author, Carol, is right to point out that a simple analysis of three men's behavior that day should be enough to determine criminal (treasonous?) negligence at the very least. Did Rummy really claim to know nothing until after the Pentagon was struck. Now, that's insane. My contribution and most repeated question from that very day until now: Where were the jet interceptors? And don't give me another question for an answer! It's not about whether anyone would shoot down an airliner (their standard response to this question); it's about interception - a standard procedure of putting a live pilot in a position to look inside an off-course airliner's cockpit to see what is happening. I saw that stupid excuse for a movie, United 93. That's exactly what it was too - a long, drawn out excuse to try and make it believable that America's air traffic controller corps spent the entire morning scratching their heads and wondering what to do. My ass. I have much more faith in professional ATC people than that. I'll bet they were sickened by that movie. Good luck with your Senate campaign Carol. I would vote for you if I could. by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:16:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Interesting air traffic controller interview:
Boston Center Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon says 9-11 "inside job." click here See also: DISTURBING FACTS ABOUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:27:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What 9/11 hijackers?
That's a good question, too. None of the ones named bought a ticket. None of the ones named were in the flight reservations system. None of the ones name got on board, otherwise. What 9/11 hijackers? It's short, it's a headline, people understand immediately: They didn't have plane tickets. www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 7:57:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Making claims you can't back up.
"None of the ones named bought a ticket. None of the ones named were in the flight reservations system. None of the ones name got on board, otherwise." You can't prove any of these claims. The media could have been denied the hijackers' names because of an FBI order. That could account for the names not appearing in the news story. To assume that there were no hijackers at all based on flimsy evidence like this is irresponsible. Facts: click here Back up your claims beyond a reasonable doubt. What you have there are paper thin assumptions based on misunderstanding of a news story. by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 24, 2007 at 9:43:27 PM (0+)
|
|
IMPEACHMENT
Unfortunately the crimes of our government go far back, at least to the Oklahoma City bombing and involves complicity by both parties. Therefore it is unlikely that impeachment will be based on those crimes. The lies to congress and the public in the lead up to the Iraq invasion and the trashing of the constitutation should suffice for openers. In the process, it is hoped that the whole truth would emerge, and would bring about a complete reordering of a government that no longer can even be thought of as government of, by and for the people. Hopefully this could occur in accordance with the constitutional safeguards that the founding fathers provided us with. If not, I fear the expanding gap twixt the haves and have-nots will force a violent, world-wide revolution that could mean the end of civilization as we know it. by Halo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 1:11:40 AM (0+)
|
|
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE f*cking sh*tting ME!!!
Where, oh where to begin…? Let’s see, hmm… I think I’ll start with the conspiracy theory. Oh, wait, that’s actually your entire thesis which is completely unfounded and unsupported. You know what I just don’t get about you cracker jack PHD California Liberals? Everything is a conspiracy! Well, your fly off the handle accusations just don’t wash! I have an idea on a conspiracy. Maybe you can help me with it. Women have been abandoning their families to work sh*tty jobs (like yours) so they can waste time trying to impeach a President who has done exactly what the U.S. Congress has asked him to. Don’t believe me…check out this web site click here Now as I recall, according to the constitution, a 2/3’s majority is required for the Congress to declare war (not the President). Here, just in case you don’t believe me, check out the U.S. Constitution Article I; Section 8; Clause 11. Now, I know the President is allowed to deploy 100,000 troops for up to three months, but, that’s not the case. If you read the link I’ve provided for you, you’ll see that 77% of the SENATE voted in favor of the war. You know, I could go on and on, but I’ll just say that women are for breeding, cleaning, and cooking meals. Stop f*cking around with sh*t you don’t understand! Honestly, I just don’t know what’s going on in that little bitty woman brain of yours?!? Leave this one up to the people who have balls! It’s man time b*tch, so f*ck off! ZACK OUT by Re'flexion (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 2:33:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well, *THAT* was rather revealing....
At first I thought "Another shill-mole". But then I realized no shillmole would ever post something so unutterably stupid. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1367 comments [407 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 5:55:07 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Of Course You Are Right About
the Puppet Masters. The Global Elite and their manisfestation in the US with the Carlyle Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Group and the Corporatists and, see below. 9/11 though, IS a catalyst to beginning to understand that all we thought we knew about our government was an illusion spoon fed to us. We have been dupes for sooo long. Woodrow Wilson (who I don't necessarily like) was just one of many Presidents and statesmen/women who pointed to this truth: "I am a most unhappy man..... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men –Woodrow Wilson. "Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -- President Woodrow Wilson by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1367 comments [407 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 7:08:45 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: all the way back to Woodrow Wilson?
Thank you Medicis for this quote. I've never seen it before. Some say the Illuminati laid plans to take over the world 400 years ago, and have been building toward that end ever since, through the Masons, Opus Dei, and other quasi-religious bodies. Seeing how its all happening now makes it seem more plausible. Peace, Carol by Carol Wolman (230 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:18:00 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Carol: Yes, W.Wilson is at the very beginning.
The very beginning was the private interests who made and own the Federal Reserve. Bankers JPMorgan, Paul Warburg, others. Wilson wanted a League of Nations. The Bankers illegally coerced and extorted Wilson -- he could have League of Nations only when he signed the Federal Reserve for them. Prescott Bush gets involved (c.1920) and so owned 1 share of Federal Reserve. Presumably his eldest son G.H.W.Bush would inherit that property, 1 share of Fed. Reserve. GHWB must have had some collateral, the Saudi Oil Royals loaned G.H.W.Bush millions of dollars in 1953-ish. Loan secured by what? Presumably his eldest son G.W.Bush would inherit that property, 1 share of Fed.Reserve. Unless the Saudis foreclosed and seized the property, some time ago, and they own the Fed.Reserve. Can you see the 20th Century story in it, Prescott to Poppy to Puppet ? Here's the link to the origin of the Federal Reserve, a book published in 1953 and immediately censored. (Same year Prescott illicitly elected Senator (remember? he indicted for Trading With Enemy Hitler), his buddy Allen Dulles took over CIA, CIA invaded Iran (against Mussadeq), Ibn Saud died. And Eisenhower walked into a sucker punch, same as Wilson, not conceiving such soulless criminal monsters could hate American freedom and democracy.) The book (CIA-censored) was let circulate in 1983. Secrets of the Federal Reserve, The history, organization and controlling interests behind the Federal Reserve -- by Eustace Mullins, 1983 www.ModernHistoryProject.ORG/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FedReserve by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 8:29:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Separating the men from the boys
Give the Play Station and the bong hits a break and study the Constitution a little more, Zack. You just might discover for yourself that without a Constitutional Amendment, which must be ratified by Congress AND a three-fourths majority of the state legislatures, Congress cannot legally relinquish (you know what that word means, right?) its responsibility to decide whether or not we go to war. That's right, junior. The Iraq war resolution is not worth the paper it's printed on. That's because in addition to making laws, Congress must follow them, and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. This, along with the lack of approval for the use of force from the United Nations Security Council (you know, the guys from different countries who sit around with those funny ancient iPod-looking things in their ears so they can understand each other) and the precedent for defining illegal wars of aggression that came as a result of the trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg in the 1940s (ask your great grandaddy), makes the invasion and occupation of Iraq entirely illegal. Right again, little buddy. The Bush administration is full of war criminals, and impeachment and removal from office is just the beginning. If we are going to preserve the rule of law and our Constitution, they must also be tried and punished accordingly for their crimes, which begin on 9/11. "ZACK OUT"? Indeed. WAY the hell out, yo. by John Perry (31 articles, 32 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 7:21:09 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Zacko's comments
by JacksonHolly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 8:47:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Zack's anger comes from his small genital-&-brain
syndrome. He typifies the right wing personality, exhibiting the usual symptoms of uncontrollable craving for attention, compulsive rudeness, hostility to rational discourse, & most obviously, deep (& no doubt warranted) fears about his own sexual adequacy. I agree with your comments that it will take "more than a band-aid to fix this," & that revamping civilization is going to be what's required. A system permitting criminals like the Bush Mob to hold power (& dependent on dimwitted small-weenie supporters like Zack) is not compatible with longterm survival of the species. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 9:51:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Whoa Dude
when exactly is mental health month anyway? by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:11:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Much deeper than 9/11
This problem goes all the way out to anyone who would possibly be in place to replace them. 911, Oklahoma City, JFK... It's all the same. Presidents and Vice Presidents have come and gone. They are just there for the PR. They aren't in control. And the distractions congress provides with the minor issues and the games they are playing with their phony left wing-right wing ping pong match are just to make us believe there is some kind of balance in our system. There were hijackers alright. The only difference is they hijacked us long ago and not on 9/11. by J Martin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 6:10:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sorry, J. Martin,
I meant for that to follow your post. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1367 comments [407 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 7:11:23 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
