Rep. McKinney -- Tin foil hat or shrewd politician?

Ya know, I heard the same kind of thing a few years ago from some rightwingers about the ATF knowing in advance about the bombing of the Murrah building. The left certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on conspiracy theorists.

I glad to see so many Dopers live near me as I too am in Ms. McKinney’s district. And now the rest of you Dopers out there know why we call her “The cuteist little communist in Congress”. This is why we keep sending her back to Washington for the intertainment!:smiley:

That’s an understatement if I ever heard one.

Lemme throw a few names out for consideration:
[li]Whitewater[/li][li]Travelgate[/li][li]Vince Foster[/li][/ul]

If the rightwinger can’t take the heat, they shouldn’t have stoked the fire so much. If Bush & Co. have nothing to hide :smiley: they should be able to take the scrutiny.

Sauce for the goose.

Ah. So you believe that it’s an exercise in moral equivalence to float baseless charges that Bush effectively committed mass murder, since Clinton was once indicted on charges related to a shady land deal in which he (demonstrably) had a part.

I just learn more and more about the leftist mind here.

Why am I seeing this dialog box at the end of the thread?

It’s a quick-reply box… but its’ horribly implemented. Quite hideous-looking.

Indicted? I don’t remember any “indictments” against Clinton. I remember two of his former partners being jailed for basically refusing to lie against him, but indictments…no, not for Whitewater.

Baseless? How about the Bush family’s ties to oil and the Middle East, especially to the bin Laden family?

I’m not necessarily saying the charges are even true. All I’m saying is that the “rule-of-law-above-all-else” Republicans are being mighty evasive about this…

**The rightwing mind-set…“It’s okay if you did it…that is, if you’re a Republican…” is the statement that McKinney issued on 4/12. Its a pretty damn good statement. I didn’t hear what she had said the day before, but I don’t see how anyone could disagree with the statement quoted from it: “persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America’s new war.”
George W. and Cheney have requested that congress not investigate the intellegence failures that allowed the 9/11 horrors to occur. Can anyone defend that request? JDM

Let me get this straight. You, CaptMurdock, take these supposed ties as strong enough “evidence” that a Congresswoman is justified in accusing the President of being an accessory to mass murder?

In the words of Samuel L. Jackson: it “ain’t the same ballpark, ain’t the same league, ain’t even the same fuckin’ sport”.

Not so simple, if it means associating with Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, and, well, december.

Why do smug partisan snipers always forget that there are loonies on both sides?

Huge apologies for the above. First, because the computer was cookied under my wife’s logon, and not my own. And second, because the post is poorly written, and comes off as gratuitous name-calling, which wasn’t my intent. The point, about partisan sniping, is valid; my expression of it is inept.

…slinks away…

Watch the clip of the reaction on Dubya’s face when he was reading to elementary school students in Florida and was told by an aide about the bombing. If he had advance knowledge as McKinney claims, then he deserves Denzel’s Oscar.

Unfortunately, the issue is not McKinney’s craziness, but her breathtakingly cynical manipulation of her constituents. I don’t know much about her, but it sounds as if she is one of the people who ratchet up the black community’s paranoia by floating rumors like (insert company name here) is affiliated with the KKK, or that the CIA is selling heroin in the inner cities. The people who profit from such rumors know that they’re untrue, but truth or falsehood is irrelevant to their goal of aggrandizing personal wealth and/or political power.

Apparently her constituency supports her, or they wouldn’t have re-elected her five times.

from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ( ):

Why would the Adminstration NOT want the events of 11 September investigated thoroughly, if for no other reason than to find out what went wrong, and how to prevent it from ever happening again?

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) has recently drawn attention to herself by implying that the Bush Administration may have had advanced warning of the 9-11 attacks. After a radio interview in Berkley, California, in which she pointedly asked, “What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th?” she issued a statement saying: “I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.”

You can almost hear the rumble of a congressional mass scurrying to excoriate her as a conspiracy nut. Or, of course, as attention- needy and self- serving.

But is she crazy? Could it be that members within the Bush Administration profited from or (gasp) were complicit to the most treacherous terrorist attacks against the United States in history?

The idea may not be as crazy as you think.

Firstly, I must make the obligatory disclaimer and say that I am not a conspiracy theorist. The reason I say this, is because the word “conspiracy” is taboo in our mainstream culture, especially when dealing with the events of 9-11. As soon as one is labeled as a conspiracy theorist, everything he or she says thereafter is nullified and ignored. Anything deemed too radical in dissent is marginalized, and sadly, upon observing how the White House and the media has reported the events of the last several months, one can see how the spectrum of acceptable opinion has narrowed into a sliver of monolithic explanation. I’m simply a citizen concerned about the startling inconsistencies in the official story, so I beg you to put away your crosses and garlic baggies.

Unfortunately, if I were to fully examine every one of these inconsistencies, this piece would resemble more of a book than an article. So instead, I’ll try to give a brief synopsis on why there not only needs to be an immediate and strong demand for an open investigation into how these attacks were allowed to happen, but legitimate suspicion due to the expanding black holes in the logic being fed to us.

  1. President Bush has said on record that he first became aware of an aircraft flying into the World Trade Center from a television set outside of a classroom at Booker Elementary School, where he was waiting to read to some school children (1). But this contradicts a report made by ABC journalist John Cochran in which he said: "Peter, as you know, the president’s down in Florida talking about education. He got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, ‘Do you know what’s going on in New York?’ He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later. His first event is about half an hour at an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida. (2)”

Why would Bush lie?

Furthermore, according to Vice President Cheney on NBC’s Meet The Press, the Secret Service had open lines with the F.A.A. after the World Trade Center was hit (3). Keep in mind that F.A.A. officials were fully aware that the plane was hijacked by the time it collided with the building. So, if what Mr. Cheney said is true, Bush knew that we were under terrorist attack before he even left his hotel, despite his repeated assertions that he only recognized the threat when Chief of Staff Andrew Card notified him of the second plane during his readings to school kids. This has grave implications to say the least, because common sense should tell you that our commander-in-chief should have cancelled his appointment with Booker Elementary to focus on protecting the country, and Secret Service (a huge staff of people) shouldn’t have let him make a pre-determined and publicized appearance in the open during a terrorist attack, especially one that’s only a few miles from an international airport (4).

  1. During that same session of Meet The Press, Cheney says that “the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft… It doesn’t do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don’t give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it’s appropriate.” This was nothing short of a bold-faced lie. To intercept an aircraft does not mean to shoot it down. It means to escort or examine it, or in cases of a hijack, to intimidate the hijackers. In fact, it is a routine procedure in emergencies of even much lesser significance of the one that presented itself on that fateful Tuesday. That is, according to the F.A.A. handbook (5).

Which begs the question of why these planes weren’t intercepted. Most notably the one that hit the Pentagon since it went all the way to Ohio from Washington before it turned around and somehow made it back to the capital without any harassment whatsoever (and turning off a transponder certainly wouldn’t allow this to happen). In respect to the fact that Andrews Airbase, a military base 10 miles away from the Pentagon, apparently kept capable and ready forces designated to prevent things like this from happening, either our civil air defense was abdominally negligent or someone ordered those jet fighters to stand down (6). God forbid we have an investigation to find out. Which brings us to…

  1. The most powerful official in the Air Force, General Richard B. Myers, laid out three exclusively contradictory stories in a shameful testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee two days after the attacks. His statements, in chronological order, included: a) “Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force… that order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.” b) “I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft.” and c) “At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center, we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately. So we stood it up. And we started talking to the federal agencies. The time I do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don’t know that time. (7)”

Thus, as he was increasingly pressured to explain why our air defense didn’t do its job, his story did a gymnastics routine, flipping from ‘we launched aircraft after the Pentagon hit’ to ‘we launched aircraft after the second tower was hit’ to ‘we set up a crisis team after the first tower was hit, but I don’t know when aircraft was launched’. Considering that in a separate press release he states that, thinking it was an accident, he continued with a leisurely meeting after he found out about the first crash and that he didn’t know America was under attack until after the Pentagon collision, his explanations are a little more than suspect (8). If that’s the case, how is it that he was involved in setting up a crisis action team after hit one, or calling the NORAD general after hit 2?

Indeed, the first story he presented to the Senate committee seemed to be the official one until a comprehensive timeline of when the F.A.A. reported the hijackings and when fighter aircraft was launched to intercept (too late, of course) was mysteriously relayed by CBS the night after General Myers’ disastrous attempt. Mysterious, in that CBS cited no sources for their remarkable new find (9).

So what’s really goins on?

Is she a lunatic for audaciously asking for answers? Is she thirsting for attention, despite risking political suicide if she pursues this?

As the ropes are being knotted and tied upon the overhead fixtures of our rigid political structure, perhaps these questions can be answered with another, rhetorical, question: which was the crazier party in the seventeenth century witch trials, the hunters or the hunted?

Michael Nelson

· A much more detailed look into the items mentioned can be found at


  1. Transcript: “President Meets with Displaced Workers in Town Hall Meeting” December 4, 2001 (
  2. ABC News Special Report ‘Planes crash into World Trade Center’ (8:53 AM ET) Tuesday 11 September 2001 (
  3. ‘NBC, Meet the Press’ (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001. (
  4. Map of Sarasota (
  5. FAA Orders 7110.65M 10-1-1-c, 7610.4J 7-1-2, and CJCSI 3610.01A
  6. DC Military Backup (
  7. General Myers Confirmation Hearing (
  8. ‘American Forces Press Service’ 23 October 2001 “Myers and Sept. 11: ‘We Hadn’t Thought About This’” by Sergeant 1st Class Kathleen T. Rhem, USA. (
  9. September 14th CBS cover story (

I like pie. Black forest cake is good, too, but I haven’t had it in a long while.

Not sure what this proves, but it’s interesting.