portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

imperialism & war

Bush Speech Terror Claim Debunked A Year Ago

A claim made by President Bush in his State of the Union speech last night, that an attack on an L.A. skyscraper had been averted, was universally debunked as a hoax by Mayors, CIA, FBI and NSA personnel and counter-terror experts nearly a year ago when it first surfaced.
Bush Speech Terror Claim Debunked A Year Ago
Just one of many State of the Union lies, following in the tradition of the 2003 yellowcake fraud, Bush commits an impeachable offense by knowingly lying to the American people

Prison Planet | January 24, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson



A claim made by President Bush in his State of the Union speech last night, that an attack on an L.A. skyscraper had been averted, was universally debunked as a hoax by Mayors, CIA, FBI and NSA personnel and counter-terror experts nearly a year ago when it first surfaced. By regurgitating this fraud, Bush has committed an impeachable offense by knowingly lying to the American people.

Bush's address was punctuated with deception, horse hockey and propagandistic drivel throughout, again reinforcing a characteristic that was born in 2003 when Bush told the nation that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger , a claim the CIA had informed the administration was based on falsified documents ten months before it was included in the speech.

Amidst the cacophony of bullshit came this belter.

"We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast."

According to numerous public officials, terror experts and intelligence personnel, this is simply not true.

Bush's is referring to an announcement made on February 9th last year in which he made the claim that an Al-Qaeda plan to fly a plane into the LA Library Tower was thwarted in 2002. The release of the news that the plot had been prevented by means of tapping terrorist suspect's phones was politically timed to coincide with the start of legal hearings on the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program.

Fox "News," the White House's PR mouthpiece, immediately began showing footage from the movie Independence Day, in which the famous tower is destroyed.

Hours after the announcement, the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, went public with comments of his absolute bewilderment concerning the alleged plot.

"I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president but somebody."

The day after the announcement, twenty three separate intelligence experts, all with either CIA, FBI, NSA or military credentials, both in and out of service, angrily disputed Bush's remarks about the alleged L.A. plot, with one going as far as saying that the President was "full of shit."

Another described the claims as "worthless intel that was discarded long ago."

Get 5 months free at Prison Planet.tv when you sign up for our New Years Special! TV shows, conference footage, field reports, protest clips, in studio camera and audio interviews, books, every Alex Jones film, dozens of other documentaries! Click here to subscribe!


A New York Times story cited "several counter-terrorism officials" as saying that "the plot never progressed past the planning stages.... 'To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,' said one senior FBI official."

The New York Daily News cited another senior counterterrorism official who said: "There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage."

The Washington Post also dismissed the alleged plot as nothing more than talk, noting that no actual attack plan had been thwarted.

The LA attack plot arose from the same discredited informant who said that Washington and New York financial institutions were being targeted, which led the White House to raise the terror alert right as the 2004 election campaign was beginning.

"The President has cheapened the entire intelligence community by dragging us into his fantasy world," said a veteran field operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. "He is basing this absurd claim on the same discredited informant who told us Al Qaeda would attack selected financial institutions in New York and Washington."

In June 2004 John Pistole, the FBI's counterterrorism director, said he was "not sure what [the CIA] was referring to," after a CIA counterterrorism official who testified under the alias "Ted Davis" said that the US had prevented aviation attacks against the east and west coast.

Questions were raised at the White House press briefing as to the noticeably convenient announcement of a four year old alleged foiled plot in relation to the furore about domestic spying.

"But is it just a coincidence? You had February 6th circled on the calendar for the hearings, the NSA hearings. Is it just a pure coincidence that this comes out today?" asked one journalist.

"Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn't you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story?" asked another.

There was indeed a great deal missing from this story in that it was nothing more than hot air manufactured by the Bush administration at the most politically expedient time, a psychological fraud unleashed on the public in order to silence critics of the illegal NSA surveillance spying program.

Bush has again committed the impeachable offense of knowingly lying to the American people in regurgitating the debunked plot in last night's State of the Union address.

Another Nice Mess 24.Jan.2007 14:10

North Portlander

Last night's dog-and-pony/bait and switch show known as the State of the Union speech contained a lot of lip service and little of substance.

A truly scary health insurance proposal that seems to discourage employer-provided health coverage and doesn't trouble itself at all with people who can't afford any health coverage was trotted out to applause as tired as the applause received during a previous speech re. hydrogen powered cars (which have not been mentioned since). More tax cuts. Less asked of the American public (except to go to the mall) and more of our military (surge on!).

The pResident STILL has not taken the trouble to learn to pronounce "nuclear" correctly. How hard can that be? What does that say about him?

I found the constant applause following every utterance by the pResident extremely annoying. Moderators don't allow applause during a debate and most forums ask that audiences hold their applause until the end of the performance. I calculated that if applause and standing ovations had been eliminated throughout the speech (or at least held to a minimum when individuals were being honored) the entire SOTU would have been 20 minutes shorter. The pResident would have to had made his case persuasively without the bogus reinforcement of his faithful "pop-ups" hoping to gain brownie points by clapping and bobbing obediently up and down every minute or two. You could market a Presidential Speech Aerobics tape on this premise and get quite a workout.

This man has lied to us so frequently and blithely, I was left wondering what -- if any -- of his promises and statements could be trusted. His "thwarted" terror attack scenarios - especially the one from Britain - made "yellowcake" fairly leap to mind. That's a bad place to be in relation to the American public. I could say that I had thwarted a dog bite, a car accident and electrocution by staying in my house and not going outdoors. That doesn't mean they were going to happen.

in order to have an opinion on pronunciation or applause 24.Jan.2007 17:55

would have to behold the great emptiness in the first place

I don't understand why anybody watched this.

on top of the lies in the speech... 24.Jan.2007 19:32

this thing here

... the fact is it was simply impossible to watch or listen.

three words. applause. four words. applause. one word. applause. five words. applause. two words... for an hour! how can anyone stand it?

it is simply the most terrible, least comprehensible way to deliver information (or disinformation) by human voice. maddening.

they might as well have had bush's voice going backward on top of an insane, pounding industrial noise piece or something.

so no, unfortunately i didn't watch or listen to the president's "speech". which gets back to the fact that in it's comprehensible moments, i guess i missed bush's normal tortured oratory which reduces english to gibberish and the usual fear mongering lies and policy bullshit that we've come to expect...

re: this timing here 24.Jan.2007 21:47

some guy

Actually, the constant applause interrupts is an effective way to distribute disinformation.

I didn't watch it either. In fact, I have not seen Bush talk since soon after the 911 talks except for very brief passing moments going into places like a pizza shop and he happens to be on the TV. The constant wailing back then about the "terrorists" hiding out in "cells" throughout our cities waiting to attack on command, "evil-doers" who attack us because "they hate our freedom!", blank-n-white extremist rhetoric designed to groom the public into as much fear and hate as possible... I just couldn't stand hearing it anymore. That was around 2001-2002! And the few times I did hear him in passing it just seemed to shock my system that much more since I wasn't conditioned to it.

I'll assume I didn't miss much in his speech the other day other than a bunch of wailing manipulative crap.

who 25.Jan.2007 01:34

what

watched what when?