Tell us about an article.

Written by Marty on May 24th, 2004

On the main page I am placing links to Magazines and News Outlets, if you find an article which you would like to talk about, feel free to do so here. Please include the link (http: address) to that article, so we can see the whole article that you are sharing.

 

 

Article is closed, any further comments should be posted at this link.

 

21 Comments so far ↓

  1. Anonymous says:

    Check out Steps to Peace with God at:
    http://www.billygraham.org/believe/stepsToPeace.asp

  2. Anonymous says:

    This article from Time Magazine talks about the interweaving of faith in the White House. I have posted a small part of the article with the link so everyone can see whole thing. Here is a thought, maybe having the separation of the Church and State is good not only because it protects the rights of those who do not believe in the same manner as those running the State, but by separating the two we keep the divisive nature of politics out of the Church. Today, we are seeing the Church divide on political lines, forgetting that they were called to be Christians not Republicans or Democrats! What I am saying is that maybe it is God

  3. Anonymous says:

    Did you see this on http://mediamatters.org/items/200406230008 Media Matters? Some people might not like me for saying this, but Bill Clinton is as much a Christian as George Bush is. What I mean is both say that they know the Lord, and none of us have the right to question that. A lot of Christians would say that I

  4. Anonymous says:

    Check out what Bill Moyers says about getting Jesus back in our democracy at http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0408&article=040810

  5. Anonymous says:

    This is just despicable that they would attack the record of someone who served with such honor! It is beyond me how any Christian can condone this White House backed attack!
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130010
    On Hardball, lies new and old from John O'Neill
    John O'Neill, co-founder of the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and co-author (with Jerome R. Corsi) of the Regnery book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, followed up numerous cable TV appearances in recent days with an August 12 appearance on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, during which he repeated lies from his prior appearances and introduced new ones. O'Neill reissued his false attacks against Senator John Kerry's (D-MA) Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Hearts (which Media Matters for America has refuted), but also presented new falsehoods about the length of Kerry's Vietnam duty, O'Neill's own deep Republican ties, and the courage Kerry displayed in combat.
    O'Neill asserted Kerry did not serve two tours of duty in Vietnam
    When John Hurley, national director of Veterans for Kerry, said that Kerry “had two tours in Vietnam, one on the USS Gridley and one on the swift boat, two swift boats in the Delta,” and Matthews asked O'Neill if he concurred, O'Neill replied, “[n]ot at all. The USS Gridley was not a tour in Vietnam. It was a ship way off the coast of Vietnam.” While Matthews was able to get O'Neill to concede that Kerry's service of the USS Gridley was “recorded as combat theater duty” and that during that service Kerry was “given credit by the Navy for serving in Vietnam,” O'Neill falsely maintained “it would never have been considered a tour in Vietnam by the Navy or anybody else…It was not a one-year tour of Vietnam.” Although much of his service in this first tour of duty was not in Vietnam, Kerry did serve more than a year on the USS Gridley, with the ship involved “in operations in support of the Vietnam War” from February 9 to May 27, 1968.
    O'Neill lied about his Republican ties past and present
    When Matthews accused O'Neill of being “a Republican from Texas,” O'Neill said “I'm not a Republican from Texas. That's just not true.” Matthews persisted, asking O'Neill “[h]ave you voted Democrat recently for president?” O'Neill replied, “Absolutely. I haven't voted for a Republican since 1988.” He claimed to have “voted for Gore” in 2000. While O'Neill's Presidential election voting records are not publicly available, Media Matters for America has noted that O'Neill contributed $1,000 to George H.W. Bush in 1992 when he was running for reelection against Bill Clinton, and that he has made a total of nearly $15,000 in contributions to federal races — all Republican — spread over all but one federal election cycle since 1990. MMFA also has reported that, according to the April 21 Houston Chronicle, O'Neill voted in the 1998 Republican state primary.
    Also, as Matthews said to O'Neill (and as MMFA has extensively documented), “you go back to the Nixon era, when [former President Richard] Nixon was looking for someone. [Chuck] Colson and those guys were looking for somebody to debunk the Kerry record, because all the records show they were scared to death of this guy. And you played that role.” In response, O'Neill said: “That's just not true.”
    O'Neill said Kerry acted only with an “ordinary degree of courage,” despite risking his life and being shot at
    Pushed by Matthews, O'Neill admitted that “Kerry, in being shot at, showed courage,” but O'Neill emphasized that Kerry only exhibited an “ordinary degree of courage.” O'Neill then claimed that, despite his courage, Kerry is “millions of steps behind … everybody,” appearing to include President George W. Bush.
    From the August 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
    MATTHEWS: [I]f a man shows any courage in the battlefield, he's done more than most people do in this country. He's gone out and fought for his country and risked his life for his country and shot one of the enemy for his country. That puts him a step above most people, doesn't it?
    O'NEILL: I think he is millions of steps behind, because he went over …
    MATTHEWS: Behind whom?
    O'NEILL: Behind everybody.
    MATTHEWS: Behind Bush? President Bush?
    O'NEILL: Yes. I'm not going to speak to President Bush.
    After listening to all of O'Neill's claims, Matthews concluded the program by stating: “Well, I've already heard enough that he's [Kerry] done more than I ever did for my country and a lot more than anybody else … and more than the president.”

  6. Anonymous says:

    http://go.sojo.net/campaign/takebackourfaith
    Sign the petition and send a message to America that God is not a Republican, or a Democrat and that the Religious Right does not speak for you.

  7. Anonymous says:

    It is outrageous that anyone would attack to military record of Senator Kerry. To think that they would lie through their teeth is just amazing! I don

  8. Anonymous says:

    I have signed it, anyone claiming ownership of my God has another thing coming!

  9. Anonymous says:

    http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=040903#3
    After the scurrilous (one could say vicious) attacks on John Kerry by Republican convert Zell Miller at Wednesday night's Republican convention, and Dick Cheney's speech – in which he didn't seem to care about facts (no apologies for his certain claims about imminent threats from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), I really was hoping for something better from the president of the United States.
    And it was better. The president spoke about many important issues – education reform and opportunity, health care security, job training, and support for low-income families and neighborhoods. I disagree with some of Bush's Democratic critics who found nothing new in the domestic portion of his speech. There are new and promising directions in his notion of “an ownership society,” which focuses on things like tax credits, educational equality, and home ownership for lower-income families as an alternative to relying only on entitlement programs. In an interesting article in The New York Times magazine last Sunday, conservative writer David Brooks laid out a vision for “progressive Republicanism,” which has a clear role for the positive action of government to make work actually work for low-income families through a range of wage supplements and wealth creation for poor working families. There were signs of such a vision in the Bush speech. I also appreciated the president's self-deprecating humor, which softened his image as a leader who is less than reflective and dismissive of mistakes and flaws.
    But what the president failed to deal with was how his central domestic priority, “making permanent” his tax cuts that most benefit the wealthy, will simply not allow such positive government initiatives – because of a lack of resources. Nor did the president acknowledge or take any responsibility for the largest net job loss in any presidential administration since Herbert Hoover; the country's record deficits; the rise in the number of Americans living in poverty in each of the last three years (now one in eight of us); or the one million Americans who have lost their health care insurance each year he has been in office. As we have continued to say, poverty is a religious issue.
    The Brooks vision will never be possible if Republicans stick to their characteristic anti-government ideology (present throughout the Republican Convention) and best summed up by Republican strategist Grover Norquist. He openly states the conservative goal of making government so small “it could be drowned in a bathtub.” The Republicans have some serious internal debating to do.
    But the visioning of new domestic possibilities was followed by yet another personal attack on John Kerry (as opposed to clear distinctions to his record), attacks that stained this whole convention. Honest comparisons between the candidate's policy proposals and records are, of course, valid in a political campaign, but the Republican Convention went over the top again and again (as Al Sharpton did at the Democratic Convention). The president's most offensive line in that regard was, “If you say the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood, I'm afraid you are not the candidate of conservative values.” Come on. I don't know anybody in America who believes that about Hollywood. And which convention was it that featured a Hollywood action hero as one of their rising stars? (And a parenthetical question I've puzzled over – has anybody heard the “family values” preachers of the Religious Right say anything critical of the notorious womanizer and body-builder?) Wouldn't it be better to see a serious campaign debate on important topics like whether the privatization of social security is a good or bad idea? Don't count on it.
    But the heart and passion of President Bush's speech and of this Republican Convention throughout was a ringing defense of the administration's war on terrorism, especially in Iraq, and attacks on John Kerry as weak, indecisive, and unfit to command. The Republican Convention has laid down the gauntlet, bolstered by the “Swift Boat” attack ads on John Kerry's Vietnam record.
    In the furious August debate on that topic, the press eventually began to scrutinize the accuracy of those attacks on Kerry's military service (after the damage had already been done), but mostly stayed away from the most controversial question about Vietnam – whether the war was fundamentally wrong and characterized by the regular commission of “war crimes.” That's what the young and decorated naval officer John Kerry testified to Congress when he came home from the war. I was a young anti-war organizer then and say today – 30 years later – that it was the truth then, is still true now, and it was John Kerry's finest political hour.
    But the country is still polarized over Vietnam and is again over another war. There is no disagreement in America about the need to protect our families, our nation, and the world against terrorism, and that this vicious and, yes, evil terrorist violence must be defeated. But whether that goal and our national security were advanced or whether they were seriously damaged by the war in Iraq is indeed the real and divisive question. Nobody was willing to “take the word of a madman” as the president caricatured his war opponents, but many of us, including most every major Christian body in the world, believed this “war of choice” to be unnecessary and unjust.
    Even as an opponent of the war, I found the most moving part of the president's speech to be the stories of his times with military families who had lost their precious loved ones. Those losses are heartbreaking for all of us (as the loss of Iraqi lives should be too). But the most heart-wrenching question is whether they were tragically unnecessary, and whether the call to virtual permanent and pre-emptive war is the most effective and moral response to the real threat of terrorism.
    President Bush's speech last night was summed up in the line, “You know what I believe and where I stand.” Yes, we do. And that will be the issue when each of us walks into the polling place on November 2.

  10. Anonymous says:

    “Christ is the Answer
    As you read these lines, you may feel that you are held in viselike grip of sin

  11. Anonymous says:

    Hired Republican Voter Registration Firm Accused of Allegedly Trashing Thousands of Democratic Voter Registrations in Nevada. This Is VERY Illegal, If True. Not To Mention, Another Rovian Chapter in the Theft of the Election 2004. 10/13
    Voter Registrations Possibly Trashed
    Oct. 12) — Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.
    Anyone who has recently registered or re-registered to vote outside a mall or grocery store or even government building may be affected.
    The I-Team has obtained information about an alleged widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats. Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.
    The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.
    Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.
    “We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assisatnt to get those from me,” said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.
    Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms, all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law.
    So the people on those forms who think they will be able to vote on Election Day are sadly mistaken. We attempted to speak to Voters Outreach but found that its office has been rented out to someone else.
    The landlord says Voters Outreach was evicted for non-payment of rent. Another source said the company has now moved on to Oregon where it is once again registering voters. It's unknown how many registrations may have been tossed out, but another ex-employee told Eyewitness News she had the same suspicions when she worked there.
    It's going to take a while to sort all of this out, but the immediate concern for voters is to make sure you really are registered.
    Call the Clark County Election Department at 455-VOTE The company has been largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National Committee. Similar complaints have been received in Reno where the registrar has asked the FBI to investigate.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Rick if this is true I hope those people go to jail. I'm a Republican but that is just wrong, so I'm sorry if it is true.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Hardly American values!
    The School of the Americas (SOA) – renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001 – is a combat training school for Latin American soldiers located at Fort Benning, Georgia. During its 56 years of existence, the SOA has used U.S. tax dollars to train more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. These graduates have consistently used their skills to wage war against their own countries' civilians. Among those targeted by SOA graduates are educators, union organizers, religious workers, student leaders, and others who work for the rights of the poor. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, “disappeared,” massacred, and forced into exile by those trained at this “School of Assassins.”
    This violence isn't ancient history, either. As recently as 2002, an SOA graduate was arrested for the murder of Colombian archbishop, Isaias Duarte. In 2003, several soldiers received training at the SOA even though they were known to have past records of human rights abuses.
    Please use the letter below to contact your congressperson and urge them to support HR 1258, a bill to close, investigate, and prevent another cosmetic remake of the SOA.

  14. Anonymous says:

    SOA teaches all the things that we can't legally get away with in this country yet. But these guys won't be happy till we all live in fear of our government. It makes me mad; it

  15. Anonymous says:

    If these were a real Christian administration the first thing he would have done would have been to shut down the SOA instead of renaming it.

  16. Anonymous says:

    The big problem is that an administration can't be Christian, only people can be. All an administration can do is act in a Christian manner, and depends on just how Christian the members of that administration are. It is troublesome that this one act so ungodly!

  17. Anonymous says:

    When are these neo cons going to stop bashing President Clinton? I would just like to see them be as hard on Bush!
    Conservatives falsely attacked Clinton's remarks on tsunami relief effort
    Numerous conservative pundits attacked former President Bill Clinton for his December 28 remarks to the BBC Radio 4 program Today about the December 26 earthquake and tsunami that killed more than 150,000 people in South Asia. For example, on the January 3 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter leapt on Clinton's statement that “I think it's really important that somebody take the lead” in coordinating relief efforts to claim that he was “attacking” President Bush and “milking” the tsunami in order to remind people of “what a big heart he has.” And on December 29, nationally syndicated right-wing radio host Neal Boortz described Clinton's remarks as “phony compassion” from a “famous publicity whore.”
    But Clinton did not attack Bush in his comments to the BBC (see transcript below). Moreover, Clinton's comments on the tsunami disaster relief operation were only a portion of the interview, which dealt also with the broader topics of world poverty and international aid. The interviewer explained that, while “guest editor [musician and activist] Bono wanted to hear from [Clinton] about aid and economic reform,” “when we did speak, we had to talk about the tsunami and its aftermath as well.”
    On the day the BBC broadcast the Clinton interview, the Bush administration took a veiled shot at the former president. As The Washington Post reported on December 29, after the administration increased U.S. relief efforts to $35 million from the initial commitment of $15 million, a White House official explained Bush's delayed involvement in publicly handling the tsunami relief effort: “The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain.'”
    Numerous conservative media figures followed with attacks on Clinton. On December 29, Boortz responded to the BBC interview by telling Clinton to “shut up and go away.” On the December 29 edition of CNN's Crossfire, co-host Robert D. Novak said: “Unlike Bill Clinton, George W. Bush doesn't jump in front of the TV cameras every time there is a disaster large or small to tell the victims he feels their pain.” In a December 29 column titled “Clinton Talks Tsunami; Bush Administration Provides Aid: Guess Who is Criticized?” conservative columnist and radio talk show host Steve Yuhas attacked the media and Clinton as “the man that Europe loved and that America impeached.” Also December 29, the right-wing website NewsMax.com reported that Clinton “st[ole] the media limelight” from Bush. On December 30, the conservative magazine The American Spectator labeled Clinton a “Bush humiliator” and quoted an anonymous former Clinton staffer as saying the interview was “classic Clinton.” On the January 3 Rush Limbaugh Show, nationally syndicated radio host Limbaugh accused Clinton of “try[ing] to undermine Bush.” That evening on Hannity & Colmes, Coulter accused Clinton of “complain[ing] that Bush was too slow to respond” to the disaster.
    Here is the portion of Clinton's BBC interview relating to the tsunami:
    JIM NAUGHTIE (presenter): I spoke last night, on this subject [the tsunami] and on broader questions, to Bill Clinton, the former American president. Our guest editor [musician and activist] Bono wanted to hear from him about aid and economic reform as part of the poverty theme that he wanted to highlight on today's program. You'll be able to hear more of the interview at half past 8. But of course when we did speak, we had to talk about the tsunami and its aftermath as well. And here was Bill Clinton's reaction to the disaster:
    CLINTON: Unbelievable. I saw the map today on how it worked. It was like one of these horror movies that we've been seeing. You know, it's also a great opportunity. I remember after the Turkish disaster [1999 earthquake], I actually went into the refugee camps in Turkey and sat in the tents and talked to the people. And as awful as it was, and it was really awful for those particularly who'd lost their loved ones, there was a sense of shared humanity and possibility. Not only because the United States and Europe and others had tried to help them in the aftermath, but because the Turks and the Greeks had helped each other. And so there was this sense that somehow, this horrible natural disaster had reminded us all that we have more in common than we do dividing us. And then, what happens is, the emotional pull of the cause weakens as time passes.
    So, I think on this Asia issue, there will be an enormous outpouring. People will give money. They will send food and clothes, and they'll do whatever they're supposed to do. And then life will begin to creep back to normal. I think it's really important that somebody take the lead in this. The E.U., the Japanese, the United States. And analyze what the real damages are, country by country, and what their capacities are to deal with them and then allocate responsibilities. I think one of the problems is when everyone takes responsibility it's almost like no one's responsibility. And one of the things I was thinking about, looking at that map today and seeing the damage going all the way to Somalia from the tsunami, and trying to imagine what it was like with that ocean going 500 miles an hour, is that maybe what we should do is to try to get specific countries or groups of countries to take responsibility for particular countries that were hurt. And I think if you did that you'd have a better chance of seeing the responsibilities fulfilled over a period of time, even when the emotional tug waned.
    Tuesday January 4, 2005

  18. Anonymous says:

    Why is okay for the right to say anything they like about the Democratic Party and our people? Just the way they talk about Michael Moore, and how they attacked the clintons for 8 years, but if we say one thing bad about Bush, they whine that we are Bashing Bush! They are just not believable!

  19. Anonymous says:

    There is a good article written by Billy Graham, it is about the Cross. This is one paragraph from it;

    First, the Cross shows us the depths of our sins. We don't realize what sin is in the sight of God—how deeply it offends Him and how it separates us from Him. Before Jesus went to the cross, He prayed in Gethsemane. He was agonizing, sorrowful. He prayed to God, “If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39, NKJV). He looked into the cup, and what did He see in that cup? He saw the sins of the whole world! He saw murder, war, racial prejudice, adultery, lying and fraud.

    To read more click here.

  20. Anonymous says:

    The New York Times


    February 10, 2005

    9/11 Report Cites Many Warnings About Hijackings

    By ERIC LICHTBLAU

    WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 – In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.

    But aviation officials were “lulled into a false sense of security,” and “intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures,” the commission report concluded.

    The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.”

    The report takes the F.A.A. to task for failing to pursue domestic security measures that could conceivably have altered the events of Sept. 11, 2001, like toughening airport screening procedures for weapons or expanding the use of on-flight air marshals. The report, completed last August, said officials appeared more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays, and easing airlines' financial woes than deterring a terrorist attack.

    The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months, officials said, much to the frustration of former commission members who say it provides a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system. The administration provided both the classified report and a declassified, 120-page version to the National Archives two weeks ago and, even with heavy redactions in some areas, the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.

    Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

    Five of the intelligence reports specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings, the report said. Two mentioned suicide operations, although not connected to aviation, the report said.

    A spokeswoman for the F.A.A., the agency that bears the brunt of the commission's criticism, said Wednesday that the agency was well aware of the threat posed by terrorists before Sept. 11 and took substantive steps to counter it, including the expanded use of explosives detection units.

    “We had a lot of information about threats,” said the spokeswoman, Laura J. Brown. “But we didn't have specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures.”

    She added: “After 9/11, the F.A..A. and the entire aviation community took bold steps to improve aviation security, such as fortifying cockpit doors on 6,000 airplanes, and those steps took hundreds of millions of dollars to implement.”

    The report, like previous commission documents, finds no evidence that the government had specific warning of a domestic attack and says that the aviation industry considered the hijacking threat to be more worrisome overseas.

    “The fact that the civil aviation system seems to have been lulled into a false sense of security is striking not only because of what happened on 9/11 but also in light of the intelligence assessments, including those conducted by the F.A.A.'s own security branch, that raised alarms about the growing terrorist threat to civil aviation throughout the 1990's and into the new century,” the report said.

    In its previous findings, including a final report last July that became a best-selling book, the 9/11 commission detailed the harrowing events aboard the four hijacked flights that crashed on Sept. 11 and the communications problems between civil aviation and military officials that hampered the response. But the new report goes further in revealing the scope and depth of intelligence collected by federal aviation officials about the threat of a terrorist attack.

    The F.A.A. “had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon,” and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said. Previous commission documents have quoted the CD's reassurance that “fortunately, we have no indication that any group is currently thinking in that direction.”

    Aviation officials amassed so much information about the growing threat posed by terrorists that they conducted classified briefings in mid-2001 for security officials at 19 of the nation's busiest airports to warn of the threat posed in particular by Mr. bin Laden, the report said.

    Still, the 9/11 commission concluded that aviation officials did not direct adequate resources or attention to the problem.

    “Throughout 2001, the senior leadership of the F.A.A. was focused on congestion and delays within the system and the ever-present issue of safety, but they were not as focused on security,” the report said.

    The F.A.A. did not see a need to increase the air marshal ranks because hijackings were seen as an overseas threat, and one aviation official told the commission said that airlines did not want to give up revenues by providing free seats to marshals.

    The F.A.A. also made no concerted effort to expand their list of terror suspects, which included a dozen names on Sept. 11, the report said. The former head of the F.A.A.'s civil aviation security branch said he was not aware of the government's main watch list, called Tipoff, which included the names of two hijackers who were living in the San Diego area, the report said.

    Nor was there evidence that a senior F.A.A. working group on security had ever met in 2001 to discuss “the high threat period that summer,” the report said.

    Jane F. Garvey, the F.A.A. administrator at the time, told the commission “that she was aware of the heightened threat during the summer of 2001,” the report said. But several other senior agency officials “were basically unaware of the threat,” as were senior airline operations officials and veteran pilots, the report said.

    The classified version of the commission report quotes extensively from circulars prepared by the F.A.A. about the threat of terrorism, but many of those references have been blacked out in the declassified version, officials said.

    Several former commissioners and staff members said they were upset and disappointed by the administration's refusal to release the full report publicly.

    “Our intention was to make as much information available to the public as soon as possible,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Sept. 11 commission member.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10terror.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

Leave a Comment