The Moussaoui Narrative: Was Obama Misled by Myth Cheney Helped Propagate?

I would hope that President Obama has better intelligence information than a newsreel of Cheney in October 2001.
But yeah…it’s all Cheney’s fault. Of course.

“why would they insert such obviously flawed content?”
Why not. Whos going to call him on the carpet for doing so? The news media? Doubtful. Maybe Jake will, he’s already the bane of Gibbs.

He needs another fact checker on his speeches. While there are an awful lot to keep track of, the President should take care not to repeat the lies of the past administration even when refuting their new ones.

“He needs another fact checker on his speeches. While there are an awful lot to keep track of, the President should take care not to repeat the lies of the past administration even when refuting their new ones.”
You two are a riot. Read below…
Cheney – “…that they put on the airplanes only had four men on instead of five. We think we may have that individual in custody, but we don’t know for sure.”
SPECULATION
Obama – “Zacarias Moussaoui has been identified as the twentieth 9/11 hijacker”
Um.. stated as FACT.
And Cheney is the one spewing lies!!
That is some seriously flawed logic you subscribe to.

There is no basis in this article for the claim that this is a myth. In fact there is much to support the opposite conclusion, even if not proved beyond any doubt, it is a rewrite of history and irresponsible to dismiss it as some sort of myth.
Is this news or opinion.
Read FACTS BELOW:
“In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.
“When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.
“At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, ‘Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’ ”
What’s more, Mr. Ashcroft noted, the wall did not mysteriously arise: “Someone built this wall.” That someone was largely the Democrats, who enshrined Vietnam-era paranoia about alleged FBI domestic spying abuses by enacting the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

MNM
knows all,
tells all,
says very little…..
re; ‘And Cheney is the one spewing lies!!
yes

It’s okay for the so-called “20th hijacker” to be held in the US at the United States Penitentiary Facility, located in Florence, Colorado, but all those other detainees are somehow too evil or more evil and must stay out of the US?
pathetic.

It’s okay for the so-called “20th hijacker” to be held in the US at the United States Penitentiary Facility, located in Florence, Colorado, but all those other detainees are somehow too evil or more evil and must stay out of the US?
pathetic.
Posted by: hmmm… | May 21, 2009 4:32:20 PM
———-
I hope you get the difference between someone arrested on US soil and someone arrested on a battlefield. It is so difficult to start to collect forensic and other data, and to put together a case when someone is caught on the battlefield.
In the past if they are caught on the battlefield, gun in hand pointing at our guys or the guys we were protecting some assumptions were rightfully made.
It was so silly to hear Gibbs compare the year long investigation culminating in the arrest of the 4 homegrown terrorists in NY and our ability to prosecute them in US courts, to those picked up on the battlefield
The dems just hope you won’t think about it too much, and go along with Obama. We have all seen how angry and vindictive he is if you disagree with him.
Go ahead, ask me for examples.

If I remember.. the MN guy was like a way to say.. if we could have searched his notebook pc.. we could have stopped 9/11 (maybe).
More value to the the domestic surveillance argument, rather than anything to do with being the real number 20. And was the Janet Napolitano comments concerning the Canadian/U.S. border security.. also harkening back to the same event?

Go ahead, ask me for examples.
Posted by: MNM | May 21, 2009 4:37:08 PM
Are you going to copy and paste from the Free Republic?
The FR takes a satirical piece from another WEB site seriously and you come on here and copy and paste it with this dire notice “If you want your blood to boil read this excerpt just breaking”
You then proceed to tell everyone how factual you are and not to bother you unless they can contribute to the conversation. LMAO

“I hope you get the difference between someone arrested on US soil and someone arrested on a battlefield”
Quite a few of the terrorist were not captured on the battlefield but grabbed off the street.

Well, Ryan C since Obama invented “preventative detention” it won’t matter where they were picked up

“Well, Ryan C since Obama invented “preventative detention” it won’t matter where they were picked up”
Obama did not invent preventative detention.
In fact our 6th amendment was designed to prevent that.
That said, that President Obama is considering this step is very disappointing.

I hope you get the difference between someone arrested on US soil and someone arrested on a battlefield.
**************
Yes, I do know the difference. Your argument doesn’t hold water since Ghailani is being transferred from Gitmo and going on trial in NY.

“Cheney was also responsible for drawing the links between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and the Iraqi Intelligence service, claiming they held meetings in Prague.
Later the 9/11 Commission dismissed this claim as well.”
That claim was never ourtright dismissed..
Show us your proof Jakie!!

Kat wrote: “Maybe 9/11 could have been stopped if Bush would respond to security memos a month before the fact that stated bin Laden was determined to strike and could possibly use planes as a projectile.”
First of all, the CIA put the President’s Daily Brief (“Bin Ladin Determined To Strike In US”) together because of repeated questioning by President Bush as to whether Usama bin Laden intended to attack the United States.
Second, there is no mention of possibly using planes as a projectile in this PDB. Just Google the PDB, and read it for yourself.
Finally, the briefing took place on August 6, 2001. President Bush and the National Security Agency were in the middle of planning changes that might have actually prevented the attacks had they had a few more weeks to implement the changes.

In her testimony to the 9/11 Commission, then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, told of more than 40 PDBs regarding al Qaeda in the first 8 months of the Bush Administration. That 13 of those briefings were in response to questions by President Bush or his top advisers. It was the CIA that stated it was in direct response to several occasions where President Bush wanted to know whether al Qaeda was planning an attack against the United States, that they prepared the August 6, 2001 PDB, “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike In US.”
Yes, President Bush was on vacation in August 2001. But he still received the PDBs and held daily meetings with his staff. The only difference between being in the White House and on the Ranch in Crawford, TX was the geography. The President’s ability to conduct business was never diminished by where he was physically located.
CIA Director George Tenent visited President Bush in Crawford on August 17, 2001. He also participated in the PDBs following President Bush’s return to Washington DC between August 31, 2001 and September 10, 2001. Director Tenent stated that he did not recall any discussions of a domestic threat during that period.
The FBI was very active in investigating tips. The last two paragraphs of the August 6, 2001 PDB state:
“Nevertheless, FBI information since that time (1998) indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
“The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.”
Now as for the changes that were being planned, one of the areas looked at was the “wall” that prevented law enforcement from communicating with the intelligence agencies. The PDB mentions that BOTH the CIA and the FBI were investigating the SAME call to our embassy in the UAE. Had they had a joint investigation would that have prevented 9/11? We will never know.
But the main point is that AT NO TIME was there ever a credible warning with specifics of an imminent threat.

The details of the Bush/Cheney failures will be discovered for the remainder of history. Lies about WMD, lies about Iraq, lies about 9/11, lies about torture, trashing the Constitution, illegal spying on American citizens, detention, rendition. They go on and on and on. Yet there are still people that defend Bush and believe Cheney – a man with no conscience or decency let alone respect for the President of the United States.

CJM OHIO:
History will actually be very kind to President George W. Bush with respect to foreign policy.
Why is it that you Liberals say President Bush “lied” yet you ignore the fact that many of the Democrats said the same thing and more (i.e. “Iraq was an imminent threat,” which President Bush never said) back in 1998 and through 2002.
What lies about Iraq? Iraq did have WMDs because they used them against their neighbors and the Kurds. Saddam Hussein failed to meet any of the conditions of the 1991 Cease Fire. One of those conditions was to PROVE that he had destroyed his WMDs, which he refused to do in order to keep his neighbors believing that he still had WMDs. After 12 years of diplomatic efforts through the UN Security Council trying to force Saddam Hussein to comply; and after the UN Security Council issued their “final” ultimatum yet were quite clear that it had no intention to follow though on the ultimatum; President Bush offered his own ultimatum. When Saddam Hussein still failed to comply we rescinded the 1991 Cease Fire and resumed the war. Incidentally last July, Iraq sold 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium to Canada.
What lies about 9/11? The Bush Administration never claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. They did, however, point out that there were meetings between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission confirmed this, but noted that there was no evidence of a collaborative relationship. Incidentally, in 2004, WorldNetDaily found and reported that there were 10 years of connections and cooperation between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Osama bin Laden’s network that the 9/11 Commission completely overlooked.
Lies about torture? The Bush administration still does not believe waterboarding is torture. Therefore they still don’t believe torture was administered. It’s not a lie, it’s a difference of opinion! Incidentally, I find it ironic that the detainees over 55 could have had free colonoscopies (though apparently none took advantage of it)–a medical procedure–yet pouring a little water in the nostrils and mouth is torture! Go figure!!!
Trashing the Constitution? Prior to the U. S. Supreme Court’s 2008 reversal of the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision following WWII, the law of the land WAS that individuals taken as prisoners during war and held outside of the United States–even if under the control of American forces–were not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all searches and seizures without a warrant. It only prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures without a warrant. What could be more reasonable than searching and seizing communications between a foreign enemy and anyone else during time of war–whether abroad or here at home?
Illegal spying on American Citizens? The Patriot Act was passed by Congress. During time of war, if Americans are communicating with the enemy, then the federal government has a right to know about it.
Detention? U. S. District Judge John Bates ruled this past Tuesday night that the United States CAN continue to hold some prisoners indefinitely without any charges. Read the ruling. Google it!
Rendition? I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Unless you believe that the Bush Administration’s legal interpretations are wrong? That’s just a difference of opinion.

What is really funny about this article to me is that he seems to be blaming Cheney for Obama’s lie.
When Cheney made the claim, it was reasonable and not untrue….there had been speculation that one of the hijackers was detained. When Obama made this claim, it had been proven false.
Typical, liberal biased, mainstream media “reporting”.

“Tell that to the Germans. This source claims the quote came from a Deutsche Welle article written by Derek Seizer.”
A hoax – satire taken as legit by extremist. There is no article at Deutsch Welle by this guy. There is a satire piece on another Blog that you all continue to promote as fact. LMAO