Dems Claim Bush and Cheney Killed Flight 93 Heroes

Newsmax.com ^ | June 29, 2002 | Carl Limbacher

[Paul Atreides]

A web site with ties to the Democratic Party and ex-President Bill Clinton is charging that President Bush is most likely "personally and directly responsible for the deaths of 37 passengers and 7 crew members on Flight 93," claiming that evidence shows Bush and Vice President Cheney ordered the plane shot down on 9-11.

The left-wing web site Democrats.com goes so far as to contend that the famous photo depicting President Bush talking on the phone that morning aboard Air Force One was likely taken as Bush was authorizing Cheney to give the order to have Flight 93 blown from the sky.

"Here is a very likely scenario," says the web site. "Bush was approving the shooting down of hijacked airliners, which led Dick Cheney to order the shooting down of Flight 93 - with all of the Heroes on board."

The photo, offered earlier this year for $150 as part of a GOP fundraising package, has the Democratic web site complaining that sale of the picture was "a huge insult to the victims of 9-11 — who died never knowing they were helping raise big bucks for the Republican party."

The report, by Democrats.com co-founder Bob Fertik, blames Bush - and not the terrorist hijackers - for killing the Flight 93 heroes:

"A careful analysis of all available evidence points to a shootdown as the most likely cause of the crash of Flight 93 - thus making George W. Bush personally and directly responsible for the deaths of 37 passengers and 7 crew members on Flight 93."

Democrats.com accuses the Bush administration of perpetrating a massive cover-up by going along with the convenient cover story that it was the battle between Flight 93's passengers and the plane's hijackers that caused it to crash into a rural field in Shanksville, Penn.

"Certainly, the White House has every reason to lie," says the Democratic Party's web promoters. "After all, it would look pretty horrible if Bush and Cheney were responsible for the deaths of the crew and passengers about Flight 93, even if the planes were shot down to protect Washington DC."

"Unfortunately for the White House" says web site continues, "there is overwhelming evidence that Flight 93 was shot down - and no evidence at all that the Heroes succeeded in taking control of the cockpit."

In fact, no one has ever claimed that Flight 93's heroes "succeeded in taking control of the cockpit." Otherwise the crash might have been prevented. The question is, did their failed efforts to regain control distract the hijackers long enough to foil their ultimate plans to attack Washington, D.C.

Given their public comments to date, the families of Flight 93's heroes seem to have no doubt about the cause of the crash.

Last April, after hearing the in-flight recording of the plane's final 30 minutes in a special session arranged by the FBI, family members seemed convinced that their relatives' heroic effort to storm the cockpit - and not a missile from an F-16 - was what brought the plane down.

"I felt incredible pride," said Deena Burnett, whose husband, Tom, died on the United Airlines plane, told reporters after hearing the tape. "It was obvious they all acted heroically."

"I never doubted that there were specific individuals who worked together, and the tape confirmed that," said Alice Hoglan, mother of Flight 93 hero Mark Bingham. "I never doubted that the cockpit had been taken over by terrorists who were thwarted, and the tape definitely confirmed that."

Hoglan, who along with the other Flight 93 relatives was asked by the FBI not to discuss specifics, described the tape as "wonderful in a strange and odd way" - hardly the words of someone reacting to evidence that her son was killed on orders of the president.

Further proof of a shootdown, Democrats.com argues, comes from reports that debris from Flight 93 was discovered eight miles away from the actual crash site, a detail the continues to perplex those on both sides of the political aisle.

But if Flight 93 did explode in midair, there are other plausible explanations, such as the bomb the hijackers said they had and threatened to detonate, according to several passengers who relayed the news in cell phone calls to relatives.

But Democrats.com doesn't let details like that get in the way of accusing President Bush of responsibility for the crash and the ensuing "cover-up."

"The FBI has stated that there was no evidence of a bomb at the crash site," the web site argues. "If the hijackers detonated a bomb, it is hard to imagine a reason why the FBI would cover it up."

Democrats.com has at least nominal connections to ex-President Bill Clinton.

Former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg sits on the web site's advisory board.

And last August, Democrats.com boasted it had "arranged with the office of former President Clinton for birthday greetings sent by e-mail to be delivered to him personally," adding, "Please join us in thanking the last legally elected President of the United States for his dedication to public service."

On its "Community" page, the left-wing web site explains:

"Democrats.com is the largest online community of Democrats. We have created a unique space where Democrats can meet, discuss, and work towards building a stronger Democratic Party.... Take our Voter Pledge to sweep all Republicans out of office."

[wingnuts'nbolts]

I couldn't ave said it better than you have.

I am reading Ann Coulter's new book, it is a must read. Thank the Lord she is on our side!

[truth_session]

So he had these people killed? Would it make him any different than Clinton?

[Nick Danger]

I know of a certain conservative web site where no plane goes down without somebody proposing that The Gubment did it. Or Clinton's henchmen. Or, you know, them.

We were all wondering where Michael Rivero went. Maybe....

[Dales]

You can do your own research, but you won't find any link to that. One isn't needed, though.

Go and look for stories about how the airline pilot's union tried to prevent the tapes from being played for the family members. They were uncomfortable with the precedent of cockpit recordings being shared with anyone. They were overruled, and the tapes were played to the family members. Those stories are not difficult to find, so no whining that you can't find them or that it never happened.

So one of two things is true. The tapes exist and say what is basically stated above, or the tapes don't exist and all of the family members are in on the coverup.

The latter is so implausible as to be, literally, laughable.

[hoosierham]

I'm paranoid but YOU won't go anywhere without your gun ?!?!

I love irony (and puns ).

Uhhh..excuse me , since there are obviously places you wish to go but cannot or will not because of gov't unreasonably forbidding your gun, then your freedom has been diminished already..........now what WAS the line in that musty old document about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " ? Just the rambling of a group of radicals, I expect.

[Paul Atreides]

What website is that, and who is Michael Rivero?

[FreeTally]

One last post to you:

Is it completely impossible that not the entire, original tapes were played for the faimily memebers?

[Amelia]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. If the plane hadn't gone down where it did, it would have gone down in D.C., and not only would the passengers & crew have died, but people on the ground would have.

I thought the morning of 9/11 that it had been shot down, and even if it was, the passengers who took action are still heroes.

[Dales]

I don't know why I was trying to point out to you how silly you look trying to push that.

Carry on. You are doing fine.

[walden]

Here's my theory of history: there is a real, sub-surface set of facts, and there is the surface story. Usually, the surface story is just an abbreviated subset of the real story, but not always. However, the motivation of our leaders to cause the stories to diverge may be either malignant or benign. Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone? No. Did Timothy McVeigh act alone? No. Were the motivations of our leaders to either fail to determine or to fail to disclose the truth in each case primarily malignant or primarily benign? With Oswald, my guess is benign, with McVeigh, my guess is malignant. I base that judgment on the characters of our leaders at the time (executives, legislators, law-enforcement & intelligence, etc..)

I like to know the truth about what goes on, to the extent that anyone outside the corridors of power ever can. That truth is in books, not newspapers, and one must be very, very patient, and read shelf after shelf of books. One also has to be willing to accept more evidence as it is presented, which can stretch out over decades (people tend to tell more of the truth in the books they write as they get further in time from the events and closer to their own death.) I figure that by the time I die (if I'm lucky, I'll live to the mid 2050's), I'll probably have a good understanding of history up through the 2020's or so. :)

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Bump. What is, is!

[summer]

This news from Newsmax sounds to me like more evidence the Dems are determined to drive away every swing and independent voter from voting Dem. Oh well! All the better for 3rd parties and the GOP, I guess.

BTW, on a related note and FYI -- BOBTHENAILER posted, below, the following recent thread is a "classic" and should be "savored" like a "fine wine":

RAT ATTACK
[Or: The Left is self-destructing as we speak...]

[Cachelot]

We were all wondering where Michael Rivero went. Maybe....

We all know where he went, what his site is and who links to him :)).

[walden]

The other thing people should keep in mind is that a fair amount of stuff happens in life that NO ONE can explain. Young people (and naive older people) always treat anything attributed to or explained by "experts" as gospel. Well, I'm pretty bright and fairly old, and have frequently been described as an "expert". Suffice it to say that I've spent a lot of time as a so-called "expert" just standing around, scratching my head, and trying to come up with a reasonable explanation for stuff that makes no damn sense. :)

[Cachelot]

So why is it 'confusing' that the debris was scattered over an 8 mile area?

Particularly when the debris was light stuff, such as paper.

[Lower55]

You're mistaking Paranoia with personal responsibility.

There is no place I wish to go that I can't go.

I have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You're the one that sounds like you're miserable. I'm perfectly satisfied with my life. You must not be pleased with yours. That's obvious.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Before President Bush was innaugerated this toad was whining that he wished someone would try to assinate him so he could get the high ratings Ronald did when the nut case shot him. It obviously never occurred to him that he might actually be killed, or that the assassin would be the hero with the high ratings. Such a dork!

[sport]

Or the cold steel treatment.

[cake_crumb]

As a resident of Pennsylvania who lives under a main flyway for both military and civilian aircraft....I can tell you for a fact that this is a very BAD attempt at propaganda, meant to draw in the tinfiol hat fringe of the left wing, who are then meant to creat an urban legend about it....expect this tall tale to resurface twice more before the November elections.

[gwynapnudd]

"Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away [from the crash site] in a residential community where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky.”

It was shot down and , given the prior crashes into the WTC and the Pentagon, it was the correct action to minimize loss of life.

Believe the cover story if it makes you feel better.