Well, geez, why don't they just sell their own photos?
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."
Witnesses that it was shot down? Where?
I live there too and watched the local coverage all day. What station had these "witnesses"?
Er, you do know what happens when a jumbo jet tries to make radical maneuvers (as if the controls were being slammed randomly in a melee), right? (Silly me. If you did know you wouldn't trot out this tinfoil-hat nonsense.)
The intercepted phone calls were a godsend - what a sensational story.
The theory that the plane was brought down by an event independent of the known decision of the passengers at just the right moment is for people who think that Occam's Razor is the brand name of the terrorists' weapons.
When you have to resort to far-fetched coincidences to save your theory, it's time to let it go.
Well, geez, why don't they just sell their own photos?
Sorry, I was incorrect about it being specifically mentioned in the general-election debates. I'm reviewing transcripts of the primary debates to see if it appeared there...but I know he spoke of it before September 6'01.
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.