Oregon Ceremonies Honor Victims of September 11th

---

Mr.NoName September 25, 2008 4:25 pm (Pacific time)

good story

---

Henry Ruark September 17, 2008 12:41 pm (Pacific time)

S-bad: Yours 9/14 7:48 am, makes point of what might have been fact if actions taken in past had been differently motivated by your implied meanings. Latest revelations re distinct lie by VP Cheney to Armey, Congressianal leader (of same party !) proves precisely the points made here re neocon actions to WIN by ANY MEANS !. Even by direct lie to own-party chief and then to U.S. public. That's what has broken our system. That's why we cannot possibly trust "me, too -same thing !" candidate for any kind of action to remedy what has been smashed so badly. Do you question it was the Bush preemptive decision to go into Iraq...set up, planned, detailed,and falsely publicly "documented"--long before by PNAC ? If you have proof-otherwise, why not NOW detail it in depth with sources in own Op Ed ? Would make hell of a national story !! My Op Ed gives you open-target points for simple rebuttal, if in fact you can accomplish it. If NOT, sir, pardon me but your small remnant of any crediblity here is now lost. UNinformation, MISinformation we can forgive; malign-meant political manipulation is a whole other-thing, easily recognized and remedied. Readers resent it since it is height of political contempt.

---

Henry Ruark September 16, 2008 5:54 pm (Pacific time)

S-bad: See no response re my inquiry if you knew of PNAC. IF you did, 15-sec. Google search could have given you Wikipedia ten-page summary. IF you did NOT, initials alone on Google and two other search engines turn up definitive lead easily followed. With computer to send Comment, there's no excuse for not checking prior to firing one off. Did you do so per Morse and Alinski, or others ? Credibility depends on proven good faith by delivery of data worth time, attention, sharing here. Still open: Op Ed for you to lay it all out in detail and depth, with documentation, on any issue, point, problem or view, political or otherwise, with ID to Editor, naturally.

---

Henry Ruark September 16, 2008 1:07 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Several refs. to Alinski and Ayers in Chicago have shown up in this and other threads. For the record, Alinski was radical, allegedly with "communist" ties. His work set stage for Obama as community worker, now in dispute despite proven impacts on youth then. Ayers, now respected member of Chicago society, is denigrated for ties with a radical youth group and statement he wished they could have done more. As offset, never mentioned but true, is admitted fact that Wm. Kristol, instigator of PNAC, longtime leader of neocons, editor of Weekly Review, conservative "Bible" owned by Murdoch (!), was in his youth a Trotskyite, turned "liberal", now "conservative" and finally, surely, neocon !! At the time, for all of them, (Alinski, Ayers, Kristol) "it seemed like a very good idea". With then-demonstrated further growth and change, their current status now should be acceptable, even with strong impacts vs each other's views. To rule rigidly otherwise is to kill off dissent from base of strong feeling within the context of certain eras and surroundings, and deny any and all possiblities of change in beliefs, attitudes, values and actions in any direction. Is that compatible with "the American Way" ? For me, change of that kind is part of the growth syndrome, and we do ourselves and our nation deep damage when we deny that it can --and should, and MUST !--be allowed to operate fully and easily with open, honest, democratic dialog as one major tool. Any comments re that "belief" on my part ? Any opposing "value statements" ? Further dialog welcome on that issue, now surely relevant to the tipping-point 2008 vote, as proven via comments here.

---

Henry Clay Ruark September 16, 2008 12:09 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Relevant information re neocon determination to WIN with ANY MEANS at ANY COST keeps coming to surface for public check and evaluation. Here's "see with own eyes" for that purpose. (Final pgh in this story moved up-front since it surely demands your full attention): "Did Dick Cheney . . . purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" Armey said. "I seriously feel that may be the case. . . . Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening." (Now here's "rest of story") Cheney Linked Hussein to Al-Qaeda, Ex-GOP House Leader Says in Book Tuesday, September 16, 2008 www.wpost.com A GOP congressional leader who was wavering on giving President Bush the authority to wage war in late 2002 said Vice President Cheney misled him by saying that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had direct personal ties to al-Qaeda terrorists and was making rapid progress toward a suitcase nuclear weapon, according to a new book by Washington Post investigative reporter Barton Gellman. Cheney's assertions, described by former House majority leader Richard K. Armey (Tex.), came in a highly classified one-on-one briefing in Room H-208, the vice president's hideaway office in the Capitol. The threat Cheney described went far beyond public statements that have been criticized for relying on "cherry-picked" intelligence of unknown reliability. There was no intelligence to support the vice president's private assertions, Gellman reports, and they "crossed so far beyond the known universe of fact that they were simply without foundation." Armey had spoken out against the coming war, and his opposition gave cover to Democrats who feared the political costs of appearing to be weak. Armey reversed his position after Cheney told him, he said, that the threat from Iraq was actually " more imminent than we want to portray to the public at large." Cheney said, according to Armey, that Iraq's "ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear," had been "substantially refined since the first Gulf War," and would soon result in "packages that could be moved even by ground personnel." Cheney linked that threat to Hussein's alleged ties to al-Qaeda, Armey said, explaining that "we now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as al-Qaeda."

---

Henry Ruark September 16, 2008 9:18 am (Pacific time)

S-bad: Your key phrase, sir, is:""It just boggles the mind how people avoid this well-documented history." Could not agree more, but then one must know what, where, and why events on record took place and with what motivations. Await yours re your knowledge of PNAC plan and its very heavy promotion by extremely self-interested groups. IF you did know, puts what you wrote in different perspective than if you were NOT aware. Which is the fact, please ? Your remaining shred of credibility here hangs in the balance, sir, for many of us.

---

Henry Ruark September 16, 2008 9:13 am (Pacific time)

To all: Please note that Randy Schuenemann, McCain foreign policy adviser and longtime lobbyist (lushly paid) for world's worst dictators, is signator on the PNAC plan, originated in 1998 long before attack on Iraq, now resulting in retaliation by those termed by some advocates as "terrorists". The 9/11 attack was NOT done by Iraq leader but by small qroup retaliating for Western previous upset of elected government in Iran, as deep studies have now irrevocably put on public record. Consequential war-status plays directly into neocon plans and performance over 40 years; do you recall Reagan Iran/Contra, resulting in same situations sweeping many South American states ? Schuenemann now advises Palin, too, on foreign policies, and briefed her on recent TV shots on which she fumbled, stumbled as with Gibson on ABC. His motivation is clearly tied to further heavy support for militarism and already huge Pentagon expenditures with total budget equal to all the rest of the world combined. For detailed explanation of Bush Doctrine, ID-self to Editor for PDF from writer who originated it, now explaining how perverted it has become, far beyond what was originated and now approving preemptive attack on sole decision of kingly President, bypassing Congress, forcing support for troops so-committed. The PNAC plan is openly the source for Bush Doctrine of unprovoked preemptive attack at anytime by decision only and solely of "imperial" President --seen as greatest danger ever since Founders began work with Federalist Papers. (Many,many citations available on ID to Editor.) Powers so claimed are clearly UN-Constitutional, as Supremes have made clear in other key decisions. PNAC denies, defies worldwide major-treaty and international law responsibilities and has U.S. refusing support for them. Many in position to understand and judge allathis see these steps as part of ongoing neocon plan to bring on radical change in our American system of government. This "rest of story" report demanded by mine to S-bad. Question to him have solid basis in known fact. Policy at stake should be set by Congressional definition and study --NOT by sole act of kingly President.

---

Henry Ruark September 16, 2008 8:09 am (Pacific time)

S-bad: Are you familiar with the PNAC preemptive-attack plan to snatch Iraq oil, produced prior to Clinton regime, sent to him as Letter signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, et al ? IF you are, you know the plan was for American use of ready political assassination. Do you support and suggest we should stoop so low, to pursue what only some few see as our true "national interest" ? That puts U.S. above all-else, "By ANY MEANS at ANY COST". for which we now see unavoidable consequences in every facet and factor of 21st Century worldwide development and continued peaceful growth. That is one policy; is it yours here ? That has been neocon plan and operationl guide, ever since Iran/Contra by Reagan and Bush I. Is it your suggestion we now return to that same approach to alltherestoftheworld ? Usual response is "we gotta kill them all, before they come to get us !!" Will that be yours, here ? Nest-shot is usually attack on patriotism for any dissenter; see Ike,G.Washington, Smedley Butler on that one... If we accept your approach, what does that tell us about ANY future, for ANYone, worldwide ? What's your answer ? If you ask for mine, it must be, for now at least: We may never find one, and all will end with that Big Bang, absolutely unavoidable if such human failings cannot somehow be remedied by peaceful plan and purposeful negotiation, as in civilized society every day, in every way. Do you want to stop there, or shall we pursue this one more via your detailed Op Ed, with full documentation supporting your view ? Happy to do so when you are ready to go that now-demanded route, sir. That's what open, honest, democratic dialog requires, replacing over-simplified, too-shallow, unprovable b/b feeling from past disasters affecting us all.

---

Sinbad September 14, 2008 7:48 am (Pacific time)

I have clear memories of the below listed senators (during the Clinton Administration using intel from his intelligence appratus) stating that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. I thought we were going to attack Iraq in the late 1990's. Had the Clinton Administration taken out Osama when they had the chance (911 commission listed two times that they had him in their sights), possibly 3,000 Americans would not have been killed on 9/11/01 and 4000+ American military personnel would not have died. Lot's of "ifs", but it is clear that if they had taken out Obama, the world would have been much different. It just boggles the mind how people avoid this well-documented history.

---

Henry Ruark September 13, 2008 7:24 pm (Pacific time)

G-A et al: Here's "see with own eyes" source you might like to check and evaluate with own mind. Shared simply to emphasize there's much more yet-to-come on 9/11, known to be under very tight control (read "suppression" if you are of suspicious mind). This is excerpt; see whole piece for detailed explanation from known solid-source.

---

Henry Ruark September 13, 2008 7:05 pm (Pacific time)

G-A et al; You are correct only in some small parts re Iraq debacle. Those you name as joining in decision did so on "intel" we now know was concocted to deceive and distort truthful findings on record, to build case for long-planned fully preemptive invasion for neocon motives. (Documentation from some at work then in Intel is on public record, cited here.) PNAC-plot by Kristol, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al to finish off what Bush I did not is solidly on record. sts correct on total impacts now creating consequences for every Earth resident,with huge costs (total over $6 TRILLION now demonstrable) and more than 4,000 dead Americans, with crowds of vets facing untold horrors of after/war desperation. That's primarily what's breaking the system, not only in the U.S. Dare we leave it to those who broke it for any remedy they can conceivably manage ? Re 911, your suspicions are better-stated; more-to-come on that when forces suppressing truth fade, with failures in advance and after-impact as most probable and most costly.

---

Grateful American September 13, 2008 9:05 am (Pacific time)

sts if there was that large of a group that disbelieves their own eyes and the governments interpretation of the 911 attack you would think that it would be more of a national topic and the congress/media and others would be demanding more of an investigation. Wouldn't you? As far as your statement that "49%" of the 911 victims family don't believe the govt. version, could you state your primary source. Also the removal of Saddam Hussein was not done because of the terrorist attack on 911, though that is what the storyline has morphed into for many. Please see the congressional record before Bush came to office, people like Kennedy, Kerry, Rockefeller, Levin and many others were claiming Iraq had WMD's. This Iraq invasion was planned long before Bush was sworn into office, but certainly the 911 attack moved up the time table whereas the violation of the 17th UN Resolution was that "proverbial straw." Is the world better off because of this invasion? Are the Iraqi people better off? I personally cannot answer any of these questions, but it appears that the Iraqi people are trending more towards it being a positive. Time will tell us someday, but don't believe for a moment that we are not at war with some radicals, domestically and foreign, who are determined to destroy our freedoms. How many countries in the world do you think would allow us to discuss these types of topics? Very few sts, very few.

---

Henry Ruark September 12, 2008 1:52 pm (Pacific time)

sts et al: Let me be among the first to commend you for insistence on finding truth, when it can be discovered (read "unearthed"); and then sharing cogent comment informed by what was found. That's essence of sensible, sensitive "journalism" as once practiced, now mainly mangled in mainstream/media. May not always work, but sure as h...beats anything else...which is why we offer honest, open, demo-dialog S-N channel, and use "see with own eyes" often, leaving to YOUR mind how we treat what we find, and hopefully motivating your own further search. We bumble, sometimes even mumble, but that's truth-here, and others can share and then learn by doing likewise. Thank you all for continuing participation in that effort.

---

Henry Ruark September 12, 2008 10:01 am (Pacific time)

G-A et al: Perhaps best possible way to honor both victims and those aiding in security now is to seek out solid facts re our security needs. This list as "see with own eyes" may help: The Ten Myths Of Our Security # "Islamofascism" is our biggest national security threat. # We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. # Military solutions are the only effective national security solutions. # What we're doing is working; we haven't had another 9/11. # "Law enforcement" approaches to terrorism don't work. # We don't need allies; we can do this on our own. # You don't negotiate with dictators. # National security spending is different from pork-barrel spending on other programs. # Airport security is critical to our anti-terrorism effort. # It's always necessary to give up our civil liberties in a time of war. ----------- For further details check out PDF available, via ID to Editor for direct contact.

---

sts September 12, 2008 9:08 am (Pacific time)

c-son..i think many do not post on this subject, because from many past blogs I have read on many forums, the reactions get violent when someone questions the governments version of what happened on 911. Very violent. the vast majority knows what happened?? you might want to go to youtube and search "911-you are not alone". Those who doubt the governments version are quickly becoming the majority My point is not to say one or the other, my point is to move out of your box and look what is going on around you. Do some open minded research, you will be surprised. Highly admired engineers, physicists, architects, politicians from all over the world, (including the U.S.), 49% of the 911 victimes families, former FBI and CIA agents, do not believe the governments version. To name just a few. Some of their questions that are not being answered, seem valid to me, and in a country of free speech, they should be allowed to seek the truth. These are intelligent people, just wanting to make sure our soldiers are fighting for just causes. George Bush said himself, (i have the video), Iraq had nothing to do with 911. (altho, before 911, he said they did).. So, many of us are wondering, 'then why are we there"? Oil? because saddam quit being the U.S. puppet? because saddam quit trading in dollars? all very serious questions. Some say it was to bring down a dictator and spread freedom. There are many dictators out there, why saddam? Just looking for answers, thats all. Usually when reading forums on this subject, I see important info by those questioning the governments version. But those who do not question the governments versions, usually have nothing but comments, such as, change your medication, or, you are a lunatic, or, you should go to a fema camp etc. (as the youtube video even shows) anyway, the most important thing about this day, IMO, are the victims families. And in support of the growing number of the victims families who believe the government is not telling the truth, (49%) I will continue to do research for the truth. For THEM. You can go on writing one sided opionionated blogs if that makes you feel better. Sorry for the novel. :-)

---

Grateful American September 11, 2008 6:40 pm (Pacific time)

A year after the 9/11 attack, The New York Times' Frank Rich was carping about Bush's national security plans, saying we could judge Bush's war on terror by whether there was a major al-Qaida attack in 2003, which -- according to Rich -- would have been on al-Qaida's normal schedule.

Rich wrote: "Since major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we\'ve been distracted soon enough." ("Never Forget What?" New York Times, Sept. 14, 2002.)

There wasn't a major al-Qaida attack in 2003. Nor in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, nor up to this day in 2008. Manifestly, inexperienced ( in terms of military and foreign affairs experience, and Rich is certainly inexperienced in those area's) pundits thought there would be: They announced a standard of success that they expected Bush to fail.

As Bush has said, we have to be right 100 percent of the time, the terrorists only have to be right one time. Bush has been right 100 percent of the time for seven years -- so much so that Americans have completely forgotten about the threat of Islamic terrorism. There are patriots working 24/7 to protect us and they have done such a magnificent job most everyone has forgotten the extreme danger we are in. God bless these men and women. And may Tim King return home safely to his family with a little more knowledge than he had prior to his adventure.

---

Carlson September 11, 2008 5:51 pm (Pacific time)

It's pretty clear to the vast majority as to what happened 7 years ago. There is that very small group of radicals out there who just hate the world, and you know them quite easily when they insult our military and our veterans. People know who they are, and fortunately they have no force of reason behind them to make others as heartless as they are.

---

Henry Ruark September 11, 2008 5:31 pm (Pacific time)

To C-son et al: From painful necessity, I have deep file titled "Life Experiences" from which I can draw more than a few very meaningful examples, for intermittent application in some writing necessities. IF you will ID self to Editor with both mail and e-mail addresses, I will send to you some which might help you to reverse some of what you exhibit here, with surely helpful results. One is story of Italian immigrant, unable to speak but broken-English, and his family, including daughter my h.s. date --and what they accomplished here in good time. One son played for Bsn Red Six, another became psychiatrist; daughter taught for 30 yrs, and we met again by chance here in Oregon... Another is Jewish merchant's story, mistreated in small Maine town, who established major dept. store there, and then aided the Italian in his small shoe-repair shop and made sure family "made it" through the Real Depression. Might just suggest to you something beyond your current state of mind and soul, which cognitive scientists now show has chemical imbalance in brain as possible culprit. Can document that, too, if you dare to read details...

---

Gloria September 11, 2008 5:07 pm (Pacific time)

I think it's strange too, but it's probably because these people that you mention have a heart. Even though there is plenty of disagreement as to who did what, why and to whom, there is no question about the tragedy, the loss, and the grief. Whether or not we're all on the same page otherwise, I'm glad to see we're all together in our respect for the families and friends who suffered this terrible loss. Our hearts all break when we remember that horrible day. In that, we are all patriots. God bless us every one.

---

Carlson September 11, 2008 3:21 pm (Pacific time)

Seems strange that I see the same characters posting comments (usually insulting ones) on articles that deal with our active military and veterans, but when it comes to this attack that killed more American civilians in a single day, nothing so far. Is it because some of you feel that we deserved it? Maybe you realize that in at least two earlier dates we could have killed Osama, but because of incompetency it was not done. I'll give some of you a flash, this war is real quiet for those of you who have just been in the states, but that may change. The only way we stop this war and claim victory will be when we cut off the heads of the leaders of our enemies, all of them. If you cannot help, then get out of the way.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.