-------- Original Message --------
Subject: new plane #3 on 9/11
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:15:04 -0500
From: blueridge blueridge@citynet.net
Just found discussion on this new footage from Camera Planet. After first
strike, and before South Tower hit, this aircraft is captured. What is it?
CLICK FULL REPORT:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit13/
===========================
9/11 TERRORIZE...
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit1/
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051205A.shtml
Indignation Grows in US over British Prewar Documents
By John Daniszewski
The Los Angeles Times
Thursday 12 May 2005
Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an
option with Hussein.
London - Reports in the British press this month based on documents
indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally
agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain.
But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant
attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White
House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to
oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their
attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the
war through diplomacy.
The documents, obtained by Michael Smith, a defense specialist writing
for the Sunday Times of London, include a memo of the minutes of a meeting July
23, 2002, between Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs; a briefing
paper for that meeting and a Foreign Office legal opinion prepared before an
April 2002 summit between Blair and Bush in Texas.
The picture that emerges from the documents is of a British government
convinced of the US desire to go to war and Blair's agreement to it, subject to
several specific conditions.
Since Smith's report was published May 1, Blair's Downing Street office
has not disputed the documents' authenticity. Asked about them Wednesday, a
Blair spokesman said the report added nothing significant to the
much-investigated record of the lead-up to the war.
"At the end of the day, nobody pushed the diplomatic route harder than
the British government.... So the circumstances of this July discussion very
quickly became out of date," said the spokesman, who asked not to be identified.
The leaked minutes sum up the July 23 meeting, at which Blair, top
security advisors and his attorney general discussed Britain's role in Washington's
plan to oust Hussein. The minutes, written by Matthew Rycroft, a foreign
policy aide, indicate general thoughts among the participants about how to create a
political and legal basis for war. The case for military action at the time
was "thin," Foreign Minister Jack Straw was characterized as saying, and
Hussein's government posed little threat.
Labeled "secret and strictly personal - UK eyes only," the minutes begin
with the head of the British intelligence service, MI6, who is identified as
"C," saying he had returned from Washington, where there had been a
"perceptible shift in attitude. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But
the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy."
Straw agreed that Bush seemed determined to act militarily, although the
timing was not certain.
"But the case was thin," the minutes say. "Saddam was not threatening his
neighbors, and his WMD capacity was less than that of Libya, North Korea or
Iran."
Straw then proposed to "work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam" to
permit United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq. "This would also help
with the legal justification for the use of force," he said, according to the
minutes.
Blair said, according to the memo, "that it would make a big difference
politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors."
"If the political context were right, people would support regime
change," Blair said. "The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and
whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to
work."
In addition to the minutes, the Sunday Times report referred to a Cabinet
briefing paper that was given to participants before the July 23 meeting. It
stated that Blair had already promised Bush cooperation earlier, at the April
summit in Texas.
"The UK would support military action to bring about regime change," the
Sunday Times quoted the briefing as saying.
Excerpts from the paper, which Smith provided to the Los Angeles Times,
said Blair had listed conditions for war, including that "efforts had been made
to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine crisis
was quiescent," and options to "eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons
inspectors" had been exhausted.
The briefing paper said the British government should get the US to put
its military plans in a "political framework."
"This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to
create the conditions in which we could legally support military action," it
says.
In a letter to Bush last week, 89 House Democrats expressed shock over
the documents. They asked if the papers were authentic and, if so, whether they
proved that the White House had agreed to invade Iraq months before seeking
Congress' OK.
"If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions
regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of our own
administration," the letter says.
"While the president of the United States was telling the citizens and
the Congress that they had no intention to start a war with Iraq, they were
working very close with Tony Blair and the British leadership at making this a
foregone conclusion," the letter's chief author, Rep. John Conyers Jr. of
Michigan, said Wednesday.
If the documents are real, he said, it is "a huge problem" in terms of an
abuse of power. He said the White House had not yet responded to the letter.
Both Blair and Bush have denied that a decision on war was made in early
2002. The White House and Downing Street maintain that they were preparing for
military operations as an option, but that the option to not attack also
remained open until the war began March 20, 2003.
In January 2002, Bush described Iraq as a member of an "axis of evil,"
but the sustained White House push for Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions did
not come until September of that year. That month, Bush addressed the UN
General Assembly to outline a case against Hussein's government, and he sought a
bipartisan congressional resolution authorizing the possible use of force.
In November 2002, the UN Security Council approved a resolution demanding
that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors.
An effort to pass a second resolution expressly authorizing the use of
force against Iraq did not succeed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
Bush Asked to Explain UK War Memo
CNN News
Thursday 12 May 2005
Washington - Eighty-nine Democratic members of the US Congress last week
sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret
British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the
Iraq war in mid-2002.
The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to
Congress for approval.
The Times of London newspaper published the memo - actually minutes of a
high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 - on May 1.
British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and
Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain
had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would
have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.
The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional
letter, which was released on May 6.
The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House
Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding
the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own
administration..."
"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before,
including Paul O'Neill, former US Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former
National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by
your administration," the letter said.
But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony
Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."
In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary
Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and
others attended the meeting.
A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a
meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by US
officials.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being
fixed around the policy.
"The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for
publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in
Washington of the aftermath after military action."
The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by
the United States, along with Britain's possible role.
It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline,
but that it would likely begin "30 days before the US congressional
elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action,
even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.
"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his
WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to
allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal
justification for the use of force ... despite US resistance."
Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the
desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of
three possible legal bases - self-defense and humanitarian intervention -
could not be used.
The third was a UN Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said
"would be difficult."
Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and
legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors."
"If the political context were right, people would support regime
change," the memo said.
Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should
pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the US did not think it
worth going down the ultimatum route."
+++++++
Chinese Axiom:
When things are investigated, knowledge is extended. When knowledge is
extended, the will becomes sincere. When the will is sincere, the mind is correct.
When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated.
--Confucius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace is patriotic!
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
253 West 72nd street #1711
New York, NY 10023
http://www.RePortersNoteBook.com
Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891
Subject: new plane #3 on 9/11
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:15:04 -0500
From: blueridge blueridge@citynet.net
Just found discussion on this new footage from Camera Planet. After first
strike, and before South Tower hit, this aircraft is captured. What is it?
CLICK FULL REPORT:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit13/
===========================
9/11 TERRORIZE...
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit1/
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051205A.shtml
Indignation Grows in US over British Prewar Documents
By John Daniszewski
The Los Angeles Times
Thursday 12 May 2005
Critics of Bush call them proof that he and Blair never saw diplomacy as an
option with Hussein.
London - Reports in the British press this month based on documents
indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally
agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain.
But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant
attention, there has been growing indignation among critics of the Bush White
House, who say the documents help prove that the leaders made a secret decision to
oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their
attack, shaped intelligence to that aim and never seriously intended to avert the
war through diplomacy.
The documents, obtained by Michael Smith, a defense specialist writing
for the Sunday Times of London, include a memo of the minutes of a meeting July
23, 2002, between Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs; a briefing
paper for that meeting and a Foreign Office legal opinion prepared before an
April 2002 summit between Blair and Bush in Texas.
The picture that emerges from the documents is of a British government
convinced of the US desire to go to war and Blair's agreement to it, subject to
several specific conditions.
Since Smith's report was published May 1, Blair's Downing Street office
has not disputed the documents' authenticity. Asked about them Wednesday, a
Blair spokesman said the report added nothing significant to the
much-investigated record of the lead-up to the war.
"At the end of the day, nobody pushed the diplomatic route harder than
the British government.... So the circumstances of this July discussion very
quickly became out of date," said the spokesman, who asked not to be identified.
The leaked minutes sum up the July 23 meeting, at which Blair, top
security advisors and his attorney general discussed Britain's role in Washington's
plan to oust Hussein. The minutes, written by Matthew Rycroft, a foreign
policy aide, indicate general thoughts among the participants about how to create a
political and legal basis for war. The case for military action at the time
was "thin," Foreign Minister Jack Straw was characterized as saying, and
Hussein's government posed little threat.
Labeled "secret and strictly personal - UK eyes only," the minutes begin
with the head of the British intelligence service, MI6, who is identified as
"C," saying he had returned from Washington, where there had been a
"perceptible shift in attitude. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But
the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy."
Straw agreed that Bush seemed determined to act militarily, although the
timing was not certain.
"But the case was thin," the minutes say. "Saddam was not threatening his
neighbors, and his WMD capacity was less than that of Libya, North Korea or
Iran."
Straw then proposed to "work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam" to
permit United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq. "This would also help
with the legal justification for the use of force," he said, according to the
minutes.
Blair said, according to the memo, "that it would make a big difference
politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors."
"If the political context were right, people would support regime
change," Blair said. "The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and
whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to
work."
In addition to the minutes, the Sunday Times report referred to a Cabinet
briefing paper that was given to participants before the July 23 meeting. It
stated that Blair had already promised Bush cooperation earlier, at the April
summit in Texas.
"The UK would support military action to bring about regime change," the
Sunday Times quoted the briefing as saying.
Excerpts from the paper, which Smith provided to the Los Angeles Times,
said Blair had listed conditions for war, including that "efforts had been made
to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine crisis
was quiescent," and options to "eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons
inspectors" had been exhausted.
The briefing paper said the British government should get the US to put
its military plans in a "political framework."
"This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to
create the conditions in which we could legally support military action," it
says.
In a letter to Bush last week, 89 House Democrats expressed shock over
the documents. They asked if the papers were authentic and, if so, whether they
proved that the White House had agreed to invade Iraq months before seeking
Congress' OK.
"If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions
regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of our own
administration," the letter says.
"While the president of the United States was telling the citizens and
the Congress that they had no intention to start a war with Iraq, they were
working very close with Tony Blair and the British leadership at making this a
foregone conclusion," the letter's chief author, Rep. John Conyers Jr. of
Michigan, said Wednesday.
If the documents are real, he said, it is "a huge problem" in terms of an
abuse of power. He said the White House had not yet responded to the letter.
Both Blair and Bush have denied that a decision on war was made in early
2002. The White House and Downing Street maintain that they were preparing for
military operations as an option, but that the option to not attack also
remained open until the war began March 20, 2003.
In January 2002, Bush described Iraq as a member of an "axis of evil,"
but the sustained White House push for Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions did
not come until September of that year. That month, Bush addressed the UN
General Assembly to outline a case against Hussein's government, and he sought a
bipartisan congressional resolution authorizing the possible use of force.
In November 2002, the UN Security Council approved a resolution demanding
that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors.
An effort to pass a second resolution expressly authorizing the use of
force against Iraq did not succeed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
Bush Asked to Explain UK War Memo
CNN News
Thursday 12 May 2005
Washington - Eighty-nine Democratic members of the US Congress last week
sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret
British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the
Iraq war in mid-2002.
The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to
Congress for approval.
The Times of London newspaper published the memo - actually minutes of a
high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 - on May 1.
British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and
Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain
had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would
have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.
The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional
letter, which was released on May 6.
The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House
Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding
the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own
administration..."
"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before,
including Paul O'Neill, former US Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former
National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by
your administration," the letter said.
But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony
Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."
In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary
Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and
others attended the meeting.
A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a
meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by US
officials.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being
fixed around the policy.
"The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for
publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in
Washington of the aftermath after military action."
The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by
the United States, along with Britain's possible role.
It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline,
but that it would likely begin "30 days before the US congressional
elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action,
even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.
"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his
WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to
allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal
justification for the use of force ... despite US resistance."
Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the
desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of
three possible legal bases - self-defense and humanitarian intervention -
could not be used.
The third was a UN Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said
"would be difficult."
Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and
legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors."
"If the political context were right, people would support regime
change," the memo said.
Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should
pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the US did not think it
worth going down the ultimatum route."
+++++++
Chinese Axiom:
When things are investigated, knowledge is extended. When knowledge is
extended, the will becomes sincere. When the will is sincere, the mind is correct.
When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated.
--Confucius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace is patriotic!
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
253 West 72nd street #1711
New York, NY 10023
http://www.RePortersNoteBook.com
Available for Talk-Radio interviews 24hours 212-787-7891
