Posted on 06/29/2002 10:42:42 AM PDT by 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."
I haven't gotten through this whole thread, but I think the dems MAY be trying to say that the heros did in fact take control of the plane only to be then shot done on orders from Bush.
This is the only scenario that would be truly horrific.
It's called "Democrat for a Day." Player one comes up with a negative event, such as a company going bankrupt, a dog getting sick on a car ride, whatever. All other players then write on an index card how that event can be blamed on President Bush. Player one then reads off the cards, and each player votes for the explanation that best captures the Democrat's way of thinking, with no one allowed to vote for their own explanation.
Scores are automatically doubled if the players can create an explanation that shows that President Bush was not neglectful, but actually malicious.
Here's an example of how the game might be played:
The event "Cousin Floyd's Dog dying at the age of 17."
Explanation #1: "In his many speeches, Bush has not once explained the need for better veteranary medicine, instead spending his time waging a war against the poorest people on earth to cover up the fact he stole the election. Like most Republicans, Bush doesn't care about dogs, since they aren't campaign donors." (This gets only single credit, since it's only the uncaring angle.)
Explanation #2: "Bill Clinton has been remarkably silent in his criticism of President Bush. Considering Clinton understands better than anyone else how Bush is destroying the nation, it's obvious that Clinton has been intimidated into silence. The death of Clinton's dog Buddy is no coincidence. Note how it happened right when Bush was trying to get support for the war. Bush realized, of course, that if the truth ever came to light, millions of dog owners would never vote Republican again. To reduce possible damage to the Republican party, Bush decided to reduce the number of dog owners in the country as much as possible. Because of watchdogs like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, he realized he couldn't get away with killing the owners (yet), but he could kill the dogs. Hundreds of dogs die in this country ever day. It's time the gutless press persued the logical explanation." (Maliciousness implied. Double credit.)
Anyway, have fun!
Did not the government allow the relatives of the people on the flight to hear the cockpit flight recording??????????????????????????????????????????
Yes it did with conditions
I personally saw several news reports interviewing those people.
What you are accusing them all of: a vast conspiracy to help cover the governments arse? All those people who lost loved ones covering up for George Bush. Yeah right.
(snip snicker)
Stick that (snicker) of yours in your tin foil hat
That was a poor choice of words. All of it is horrific. But it would bring an extra jolt to think that the plane was under control and safe and then shot down.
We know that the rumors of 93 being shot down have been out there for months. And the story went nowhere because everyone knew that if it were shot down, it was necessary. So, now the dems are trying this.
When the Senate blamed GW for 9-11 the first time, the public howled and they pulled back...for a few days, then repeated the performance...essentially saying "forget you, America." What shocked me was the press's...FoxNews'.. willingness to carry the DNC propaganda, the disregard for truth with our enemies watching.
How low will these Dems. go? They would frighten children, seniors, enslave the poor with rhetoric of hate and envy + impossible promises of a free lunch, corrupt our children, break up our families and replace God with themselves, undermine our President and work to divide our nation during wartime for partisan political purposes. What is lower? Maybe the press's over 50-year cover-up and historical revisionism, and the resulting miseducation and anti-Americanism of much of the world's population.
After reading about the militant Muslim nuts, the Dems. appeared almost decent. Burying the hatchet to fight as a unified nation against common enemies was common sense, I thought.. Now, I don't know. What do we do when our own liberalized institutions work against the USA and use their God-given (and taxpayer/American funded) resources to aid our enemies?
What if the event actually transpires and the Democrats actually spin it as predicted?
It is doubtful that the heroes could have gotten and kept control of the plane. Even if some of the passengers had managed to get control of the cockpit briefly, the hijackers in the back of the plane would have likely been able to take it back. The real question in my mind is whether the hijackers crashed the plane to prevent the passengers from regaining control, or whether a passenger forced an unrecoverable dive to prevent the terrorists from regaining control.
Who told you?
And only libs could raise this issue while at the same time insisting the pilots shouldn't be armed and instead rely on having to shoot down any future hijacked flights.
All the more reason not to let them in power again - think of the kind of people who would be in charge and how hard it would be to get rid of that kind of person - the nationwide vote fraud of November 2000 was just a taste.
Stalin, Beria, Goebels and Castro, even in their, salid days could not have come up with such a load of CR&P.
So the entire human race was defenseless prior to the invention of gun powder?
Many many more lives probably were saved by that plane going down.
I wish the WTC planes had been shot down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.