Traitor-Gate arrives for Bush and Cheney

[Fleet]

Before Bush and Cheney were elected, they said nation-building was wrong for America.

Now they say it is vital.

They said they would never put U.S. troops under foreign control.

Now they promise to embed them in Iraqi units.

They told us about WMD.

Mobile labs, Secret sources, Aluminum tubes, Yellow-cake.

They has told us the war is necessary:

Because Saddam was a material threat. Because of 9/11.

Blair, was a willing follower, bedazzled by them just as he often is, confirmed by his vacationing with the pop elite.

Now at least Cheney is starting to receive what he is deserving of. He has now been identified as The Traitor of Traitor-Gate - and his removal can surely be not far distant.

The reports from the trial of Libby are in and state that Vice President Dick Cheney and his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were personally and actively involved in an effort to spin news coverage and discredit a critic of the Iraq war even before the fact that his wife was a CIA operative became public.

Catherine J. Martin said that at one point Cheney dictated a detailed list of talking points to be used by Libby and others in making calls to reporters. Martin was Cheney's top media aide at the time and is now deputy White House director of communications for policy and planning.

On the third day of the Libby trial, Martin offered a rare glimpse behind the secrecy that has surrounded senior officials of the Bush administration involved in making and managing Iraq war policy. She described details of a White House media strategy, hatched at the highest levels, which sought to rebut charges that Bush had misled the public in his 2003 State of the Union. The vice president ordered media aides to start tracking news coverage closely, while Libby was directed to contact reporters.

Yes, this is the same man who decided not to scramble the fighters on 9/11. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On May 23, 2003 in front of the 9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

As the plane in question hit the Pentagon, what else can we conclude but that the 'order' was not to shoot down the aircraft and to let it find its target. A Traitor indeed.

[andrewwatson]

One thing that's aways puzzled me about the 'Mineta testimony', and particularly that theory about the orders referring to the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon , is this: how did they know that at 50 miles out it was a threat to the Pentagon?

Presumably because they themselves were piloting it.

[Bushwacker]

[Mark Gobell]

Why does anyone assume that Mineta's "testimony" was the truth ?

[brian]

Mark, what Mineta told the inquiry was told almost verbatim on the internet long before he gave his testimony. I cant find a link as yet but Ruppert refers to Cheney and "the orders still stand" in Crossing the Rubicon .

This below is from Paul Thomsons timeline -

(9:27 a.m.) Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice, in their bunker below the White House, are told by an aide that an airplane is 50 miles outside Washington and headed toward it. The plane is Flight 77. Federal Aviation Deputy Chief Monty Belger says, "Well we're watching this target on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off. So we, have no identification." They are given further notices when the plane is 30 miles away, then 10 miles away, until it disappears from radar (time unknown, but the plane is said to be traveling about 500 mph and was 30 miles away at 9:30, so 50 miles would be about 3 minutes before that). [ABC News, 9/11/02] The Dulles tower flight controller who is said to first spot Flight 77's appearance near Washington, Danielle O'Brien, previously claims she doesn't find its radar blip until it is around 12 and 14 miles from Washington, and that Cheney is notified only after that. [ABC, 10/24/01, ABC, 10/24/01 (B)] O'Brien's account does not jibe with the fact that the FAA warned that the plane was headed toward Washington at 9:24 (see 9:24 a.m.).

[mobypaterson]

for the best collection of what happened before, during and after the Iraq war you need to read this
book.

It's a superb book and every lie, mistruth and piece of spin is documented. I can't recommend it enough

[Mark Gobell]

Brian

That's actually part of my reason for having suspicions about Minetas statements.

His alleged words were reported very early on, as part of the the 1st anniversary fog and have been accepted as gospel.

I do know the history of Mineta's testimony.

What I find suspicious is:

Nobody knows for sure if he is speaking the truth about what the unknown "aide" said or didn't say and even if an anonymous aide did say what is claimed, nobody knows for sure what the orders were to which he was referring.

I find it incredible, no unbelievable, that the Secretary for Transport makes these potentially damaging claims that could lead to impeachment for Cheney at least if ever proved, and is allowed to stay in his job until 7.7.6

I thought it was a perfect ruse too, to have Mineta resign the day after Fetzer mentions the claim on TV.

Perfect.

Don't you find that ever so slightly suspicious ?

[brian]

Mark, I take your point and like yourself question most of what is presented. In this case it appears to have a ring of truth to my mind. Given the number of times NORAD have changed their story it is difficult to see how they would been so well prepared with the Cheney/Mineta tale. Paul Thomsons timeline also gives it credence.

The only logical orders to fit the scenario would have been stand down surely, no other orders I can think of make sense - else why question them?

I do agree that Mineta's explosive testimony seems odd to say the least in the scheme of things, especially coming so long after the event.

Thank f... the demolition is so obvious eh.

[Mark Gobell]

Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission has generally been accepted as referring to a "stand down" order.

His testimony, as we know was one of the many ommissions from the final report, as documented by DRG.

Reading / listening to his testimony, allows a clear understanding of Lee Hamilton's questions and Mineta's responses.

They are discussing the unnamed aide's questions to Cheney in the context of a "shoot down" order, not a "stand down" order.

Mineta is very careful not to mention a shoot down order even when Hamilton presses him on it.

He says that he didn't know that the shoot down order had been given, and he only learned about it afterwards.

His testimony about what time Cheney arrived in "the bunker" conflicts with Cheney's own, so maybe this was why his testimony was ommitted.

Here is a video of Norman Mineta's testimony: http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv

from a page here http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860

If we assume that the "order" about which there has been much disinfo it would seem, actually refers to a "shoot down" order instead of a "stand down" order then, for me, it is clear that Cheney's arse is covered because the blame leads nicely back to a NORAD screw up, who in turn, as we know, have lied again and again, suffered from medium term memory loss and blamed the FAA anyway.

[brian]

Mark, the problem with assuming that is that according to the Commission and Cheney a shoot down order was not made until 10.10 .

The Pentagon was hit at 9.38 - That would mean Mineta's testimony was complete nonsense.

Minetas testimony puts Cheney in the frame before the supposed time of shoot down orders AND prior to the Pentagon being hit. If we are to accept his testimony this then begs the question - what orders was the young man referring to?

Griffin -

"This testimony by Mineta was a big threat not only because it indicated that there was knowledge of the approaching aircraft at least 12 minutes before the Pentagon was struck, but also because it implied that Cheney had issued stand-down orders. Mineta himself did not suggest that, to be sure. He assumed, he said, that “the orders” mentioned by the young man were orders to have the plane shot down. Mineta's interpretation, however, does not fit with what actually happened: The aircraft was not shot down. That interpretation, moreover, would make the story unintelligible: If the orders had been to shoot down the aircraft if it got close to the Pentagon, the young man would have had no reason to ask if the orders still stood. His question makes sense only if the orders were to do something unexpected---not to shoot down the aircraft. The implication of Mineta's story is, therefore, that the attack on the Pentagon was desired."

http://mujca.com/flighttales.htm

[Mark Gobell]

Brian

Things have been deliberately juxtaposed imo.

The "military aide", do the orders still stand evidence, Mineta's testimony to same and the official Rove / Cheney version of those same events recorded in the 9/11 Report apparently do not relate to AA77 but presumably UA93, even though it had already crashed.

According to the 9/11 Report there is no way that these conversations could have related to AA77 because it says they were taking place long after it crashed.

I know the report is the most elaborate fiction ever but can we pin down the timing of Mineta's evidence ?

Unless we can do that then the 9/11 Report may well have succeeded in assigning that conversation to a much later time and hence avoiding it's relation to AA77.

The video testimony is equally confusing because Mineta is talking about the military aide, without mentioning times, in relation to the flight that "came into the Pentagon" - note no identification given.

His testimony then moves onto UA93 and he is asked "there was no specific order there to shoot UA93 down" to which he replies "no sir"

DRG categorises Mineta's testimony as a big threat. But it is only a threat if it can accurately be assigned a time, which I don't see yet.

Besides, his testimony is paraphrased in the report, so it is in there.

Confused ?

[Mark Gobell]

OK scrub that:

When Mineta was asked by Commissioner Timothy Roemer how long this conversation occurred after he arrived, Mineta said: “Probably about five or six minutes,” which, as Roemer pointed out, would mean “about 9:25 or 9:26.”

Where is this from ?

Mineta is quoted as giving this evidence on 22 or 23 May 2003 but I can't find it in the 9/11 Commission transcripts.

[brian]

Mark -

MR. ROEMER: Nice to see you, Mr. Secretary, and nice to see you feeling better and getting around as well, too.

I want to follow up on what happened in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center and try to understand that day a little bit better. You said, if I understood you correctly, that you were not in the room; you were obviously coming from the Department of Transportation, where you had been busy in a meeting in official business, but you had not been in the room when the decision was made -- to what you inferred was a decision made to attempt to shoot down Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon. Is that correct?

MR. MINETA: I didn't know about the order to shoot down. I arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 a.m. And the president was in Florida, and I believe he was on his way to Louisiana at that point when the conversation that went on between the vice president and the president and the staff that the president had with him.

MR. ROEMER: So when you arrived at 9:20, how much longer was it before you overheard the conversation between the young man and the vice president saying, "Does the order still stand?"

MR. MINETA: Probably about five or six minutes.

MR. ROEMER: So about 9:25 or 9:26. And your inference was that the vice president snapped his head around and said, "Yes, the order still stands." Why did you infer that that was a shoot-down?

MR. MINETA: Just by the nature of all the events going on that day, the scrambling of the aircraft and, I don't know; I guess, just being in the military, you do start thinking about it, an intuitive reaction to certain statements being made.

MR. ROEMER: Who was the young man with the vice president?

MR. MINETA: Frankly, I don't recall.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_ 2003-05-23.htm#panel_one

[Mark Gobell]

Thanks Brian.

So either Mineta's testimony is false or the 9/11 Report changed the timeline.

I'm not even sure now that I knew that detail. Maybe I've just forgotten it.

Sorry to muck you about and thanks for putting me straight.

An afterthought on that transcript.

Even Roemer is questioning Mineta's assumption that the aide was questioning a shoot down order.

So, what was the order - a shoot down or stand down ? and as Roemer is questioning the asumption that it was a shoot down order what is he getting at, given that he wouldn't want to infer the alternative was a stand down order would he ?

[brian]

Mark, no problem.

From the Paul Thomson timeline above -

"Federal Aviation Deputy Chief Monty Belger says, "Well we're watching this target on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off. So we, have no identification." They are given further notices when the plane is 30 miles away, then 10 miles away, until it disappears from radar (time unknown, but the plane is said to be traveling about 500 mph and was 30 miles away at 9:30, so 50 miles would be about 3 minutes before that). [ABC News, 9/11/02]"

We know the numerous tales from Norad would have us believe otherwise but it seems a no brainer that EVERYONE of consequence would have been aware of what was happening AS it was was happening. The evidence supports this. That makes Mineta's testimony more likely nearer the truth.

The [ABC News, 9/11/02] link from the Timeline backs that up -


9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings

ABC News
September 11, 2002


04:03:14 CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER

As I was trying to find all the principals, the Secret Service came and said, you have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President's already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House. There are a lot of planes that are in the air that are not responding properly.

04:03:28 CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS

(VO) In the bunker, the Vice President is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta.

04:03:34 NORMAN MINETA, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY

Someone came in and said Mr. Vice President, there's a plane out 50 miles.

04:03:39 CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS

(VO) Mineta confers with Federal Aviation Deputy Chief Monty Belger.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/abcnews091102.html

It carries on - its about a third of the page down.

As for Roemer's question - he would be aware the official line was there was not supposed to any shoot down order at that time but for why he highlights it - not a clue.

[Mark Gobell]

Am I right in thinking that the assumption of a shoot down order is really easy to dismiss.

Even if we reason that Mineta did say what he said when he said it, before AA77 crashed, then the aide's questioning of Cheney could be interpreted as "does the shoot down order still stand" could it not ?

If it was then the fact that it wasn't shot down doesn't implicate Cheney because that's NORAD's job.

I'm still not convinced I guess that the aide was referring to a stand down order.

Also, why would an aide be allowed to know that impeachy detail anyway ?

[Mark Gobell]

The more I think about this controversy, the more I doubt it's veracity.

I have, as I said before, a major problem accepting that Mineta was even allowed to testify with his "evidence" and then to stay in office for so long having made such a huge potentially catastrophic statement to the 9/11 Commission.

For those that would counter with, ah but Mineta's testimony didn't make it to the Commissions Report I respond by saying that it did in some form, but it wasn't attributed to Mineta, it was credited to "notes" taken by Mrs Lynne Chaney, the VP's wife and Scooter Libby.

It was, as we know, also assigned a different time: 10:10 to 10:15 to that which Mineta assigned it - before the Pentagon was hit.

It was also worded differently. Mineta says the aide asked "does the order still stand" whereas the 9/11 report states that the aide asked for permission to engage the aircraft, twice.

If Mineta is telling the truth and Mrs Cheney & Libby's notes are facts too, then there must have been two different times at which an aide asked similar questions.

If either Mineta and / or Mrs Cheney & Libby's notes are fabricated then either or both possibilities lead me to conclude that either or both pieces of testimony were made to implicate NORAD and / or the FAA.

What seems to me to be nonsensical is that an aide would have to keep asking Cheney for confirmation of a stand down order and even if he did, why would we be allowed to know of it ?

Surely if there was a stand down order they wouldn't allow any inference of it to reach the general public.

Besides, the only inferences to whatever order is being questioned, if indeed an order was being questioned at all, were made by the notes taken by the wife of the Vice President, the VP's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby and the Secretary of Transport, Mineta who was included on Bush's National Security Council on the evening of Sept 11th.

The notion that an aide questioned something, imo, has to be treated with the utmost caution, not least because it made it into the 9/11 Commission Report, but that it came from Mrs Cheney & Libby.

The fact that Mineta's testimony is widely available and yet didn't make it into the report has been the reason why this whole thing has been interpreted as referencing a stand down order and rests on the perception that Mineta was a loose cannon.

That, right there, it could be argued, might have been the overall intention.

It might also be informative to learn that the 9/11 Report states that the alleged 10:10 - 10:15 "permission to engage" episode "dropped below the radar screen and it's continually hovering in your imagination; you don't know where it is or what happens to it. "

"Eventually the shelter received word that the alleged hijacker 5 miles away had been a medevac helicopter."

Imagination, hovering, helicopter.

So, from a scenario where a hijacked aircraft is 5 miles out - permission to shoot it down captain, to, erm, what hijacked aircraft, oh we kinda forgot about that. Oh it was a helicopter anyway.

This is deliberate, official confusion. I think the entire story is too.