Career Army Officer Sues Cheney, Rumsfeld For 9/11 Complicity

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2008 7:10 PM GMT


    http://www.infowars.com/?p=6636#comments

    I'd sure be interested in seeing this go to court.
    ___________________________________________

    181208top.jpg

    A career Army officer who was injured in the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 is suing Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for failing to issue a warning that American Airlines Flight 77 was about to hit the building despite receiving knowledge of its approach some 20 minutes in advance.

    Retired Army officer April Gallop, a ranking specialist with top secret clearance who began working at the Pentagon in 2000, has also filed suit against US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11.

    Gallop was knocked unconscious when the roof collapsed in her office her and her 2-month-old baby sustained a serious brain injury after suffering the consequences of what Gallop describes as “two explosions”. Gallop does not believe that a Boeing 757 struck the building on 9/11. The lawsuit charges that the attack was “engineered by other means, a planted bomb or bombs and/or a missile,” citing the lack of plane debris witnessed after the attack, along with evidence from the “black box” discovered at the scene, which indicated that the plane passed low over the building immediately before the fireball was observed, as well as the complete failure of ground and air defenses which protect the Pentagon.

    The official 9/11 timeline confirms that NORAD and the FAA knew that Flight 77 had been hijacked and was likely headed towards Washington at 9:24 a.m, 19 minutes before the Pentagon was struck. The gap between the second plane hitting the World Trade Center and the incident at the Pentagon was a full 40 minutes.

    “The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised ‘painful questions’ about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent” said Gallop’s attorney William Veale in a press release.

    The suit charges that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Myers conducted a conspiracy to facilitate the attacks and alleges that other unnamed individuals had foreknowledge. The preliminary statement of the lawsuit charges that the attacks were staged so as to “Generate a political atmosphere of acceptance in which the new Administration could enact and implement radical changes in the policy and practice of constitutional government in our country.”

    The text of the lawsuit lists a mountain of evidence indicating that top members of the Bush cabinet had a hand in the attacks, focusing not just on the Pentagon, but prior knowledge of the attacks and the inconceivable response to all four hijacked airliners on 9/11.

    The suit cites the Project For a New American Century strategy documents as proof that top Neo-Cons were yearning for “a new Pearl Harbor” in order to whip up support for a pre-planned geopolitical agenda.

    “By helping the attack succeed, defendants and their cohorts created a basis for the seizure of extraordinary power, and a pretext for launching the so-called Global War on Terror, in the guise of which they were free to pursue plans for military conquest, “full spectrum dominance” and “American primacy” around the world; as they have done,” reads the lawsuit.

    Attorney William Veale says that if the lawsuit gets past a motion to dismiss, it may be the key which will unlock a plethora of disturbing questions about 9/11.

    “What they don’t want is for this to go into discovery,” William Veale told Raw Story. “If we can make it past their initial motion to dismiss these claims, and we get the power of subpoena, then we’ve got a real shot at getting to the bottom of this. We’ve got the law on our side.”

    The full text of the lawsuit is at the link above.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Dec 18, 2008 11:15 PM GMT
    The only curiosity this lawsuit strikes in me is how it is full of motive with a retrospective accounting of events instead of providing actual evidence that supports the claims leading to the attacks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2008 3:41 AM GMT
    A lot of folks will jump on this, discount and try to throw it out as another 'conspiracy' theorist stabb at getting attention. But guys there are far too many inconsistancies to the official 'conspiracy' story to let it this go without some real searching. I too, hope that this is allowed to go forward into discovery. Why should people be afraid of more 'sunshine' coming down on these bushies who wanted so badly to have a reason to go into iraq, and actually had plans to take over more countries in the Middle East. I WANT THE TRUTH !!! we don't have it now, not on 911, the war, their torture, interrogations in other country's, surveilance, and on many other subjects and issues. With all that the bushies lied about and all that has come out as of this date, that proves them to be anything but trustworthy, I am all for anything that brings out the full story, if for no other purpose but to insure that we never allow another administration to take us into the hell the bushies have. This group of thugs needs to be brought to justice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2008 4:06 AM GMT
    I'm certain that Bush & Cheney exploited 9/11 for their own Neo-Con agenda. I also think the US bungled our defense against that threat.

    But neither do I think the attack was ALLOWED to happen; that's just irrational nonsense. And an Officer who was on Active Duty cannot sue the US government on these grounds, no matter how liable it may be.

    A civilian perhaps, but not a Commissioned Officer, by law. Otherwise, any soldier could sue the government any time a commander made an allegedly bad decision on the battlefield, which would invite chaos.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2008 4:37 AM GMT
    Food for thought !!!! one of the Nazi party leaders theory on propaganda was to give the public something to believe in, when the truth was "UNBELIEVABLE", or so terrible that the public would not want to believe it. False flag operations (allowing something to happen) for the bigger purpose/for the good of the people, is nothing new with governments, non the less ours. I cannot or will not say what these bushies did or didn't do, but with their track record, and cheney's warm and cuddly "heart of gold" toward his fellow man, I want to see anything go forward that might bring out the truth, whatever it is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2008 4:42 AM GMT
    if 9-11 wasn't so horrible to begin with, I might find this whole thing laughable... what's next? Laura Bush kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, too?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2008 7:21 PM GMT
    FALCONER saidif 9-11 wasn't so horrible to begin with, I might find this whole thing laughable... what's next? Laura Bush kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, too?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope !!! Laura didn't kidnap the lindbergh baby, but her husband and cheney lied us into a catastrophic war, That is has been proven and substantiated over and over again. They did authorize/condone torture (if its been torture to waterboard for hundreds of years its still torture in spite of pressuring some attorneys to say otherwise so they could lie and say "America doesn't torture") the list from them goes on and on. Laura's daddy in law did pay off the Iranians to keep the hostages back in late 79' to help Reagan and the first bush get elected. ( read the writings/proof of the reknowned investigative reporter Robert Perry, where he describes how Democrat lee Hamilton of Indiana, and Clinton covered it up "for the good of the country') There are about 58,000 dead Vietnam Vets who would have loved to known and been able to stop that war that was "kicked off" by the "false flag" operation known as the "bay of conquin" (sp) where we were supposedly attacked, and the attack was used as a basis to escalate into the Vietnam War. There is well documented evidence that this was "False Flag" and nothing more, The CIA wanted the war, and this was the tool to push Johnson to push forward with war. SO LAUGH !!!!! American nieve "sheeples" who aren't curious enough, or don't care enough to get to the truth are exactly why we find ourselves in this current debacle compliments of bush/cheney. Sorry, but the truth is that its plain and simply ignorance to not push for the truth !!!! Thank you again original714 for posting this !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2008 7:21 PM GMT
    FALCONER saidif 9-11 wasn't so horrible to begin with, I might find this whole thing laughable... what's next? Laura Bush kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, too?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope !!! Laura didn't kidnap the lindbergh baby, but her husband and cheney lied us into a catastrophic war, That is has been proven and substantiated over and over again. They did authorize/condone torture (if its been torture to waterboard for hundreds of years its still torture in spite of pressuring some attorneys to say otherwise so they could lie and say "America doesn't torture") the list from them goes on and on. Laura's daddy in law did pay off the Iranians to keep the hostages back in late 79' to help Reagan and the first bush get elected. ( read the writings/proof of the reknowned investigative reporter Robert Perry, where he describes how Democrat lee Hamilton of Indiana, and Clinton covered it up "for the good of the country') There are about 58,000 dead Vietnam Vets who would have loved to known and been able to stop that war that was "kicked off" by the "false flag" operation known as the "bay of conquin" (sp) where we were supposedly attacked, and the attack was used as a basis to escalate into the Vietnam War. There is well documented evidence that this was "False Flag" and nothing more, The CIA wanted the war, and this was the tool to push Johnson to push forward with war. SO LAUGH !!!!! American nieve "sheeples" who aren't curious enough, or don't care enough to get to the truth are exactly why we find ourselves in this current debacle compliments of bush/cheney. Sorry, but the truth is that its plain and simply ignorance to not push for the truth !!!! Thank you again original714 for posting this !!!
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Dec 22, 2008 7:56 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidI'm certain that Bush & Cheney exploited 9/11 for their own Neo-Con agenda. I also think the US bungled our defense against that threat.

    But neither do I think the attack was ALLOWED to happen; that's just irrational nonsense. And an Officer who was on Active Duty cannot sue the US government on these grounds, no matter how liable it may be.

    A civilian perhaps, but not a Commissioned Officer, by law. Otherwise, any soldier could sue the government any time a commander made an allegedly bad decision on the battlefield, which would invite chaos.


    it is to bad that Military Members can not sue, there would be a lot less non sense, as you describe it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2008 8:06 PM GMT
    In order for this happen should the defense leaders be held responsible that were under Clinton as well? Because this was planned during their watch as also. It was just carried out during Bush/Cheney.

    I'm just saying the law suit does not make sense to me. Why not sue the men that got us involved in Vietnam conflict?
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Dec 22, 2008 8:33 PM GMT
    Ducky44 saidIn order for this happen should the defense leaders be held responsible that were under Clinton as well? Because this was planned during their watch as also. It was just carried out during Bush/Cheney.

    I'm just saying the law suit does not make sense to me. Why not sue the men that got us involved in Vetenam conflict?


    Your right, the people that caused Vietnam, should also be held accountable, 50,000 + people dead, for what!

    Clintons people tried to bring this forth from their administration, and were dismissed and demoted by the Bushees.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 22, 2008 11:43 PM GMT
    Its my understanding from reading more from Robert Parry (he does a great job of documenting his findings i might add) that the Neocon group The project for the new American Century, were pretty exclusive about keeping their detailed middle East plans to take over Iraq, Afganhistan, Iran, and their plans for trying to control the Caspian Sea Basin Oil (they hoped to keep it from Russian control, they failed to a large degree there too) in and amongst their own group. I did read though that this group came about through the backing of a committee headed by none other than McCain in the 90's, and that they did approach Clinton about going to war to remove Hussein, and he refused. The big question is whether the Obama
    Administration will follow the lead of Clinton, and cover up what the previous administration did, for "the sake of the country". I'd be willing to bet though that had Clinton not covered up the Bush/Reagan "October Surprize" of payoffs to the Iranians so they could improve their election chances, that Gdubya would have never gotten elected in the first place. (is it any wonder daddy Bush, and Clinton have gotten along so well?) I think things have a better chance of coming out now because of the internet exposing so much of this stuff, and its spreading more every day, you see the power brokers the likes of bush/cheney cannot control it like they can the big three media. Maybe this time since obama is so attached/successfull and influenced by the internet that he will set his Dept of Justice lose and let the cards fall where they will. GOD HOW I HOPE !!!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2008 12:04 AM GMT
    realifedadLaura didn't kidnap the lindbergh baby, but her husband and cheney lied us into a catastrophic war...


    And THAT myth has been proven false over and over and over... so why continue to propagate it? I suppose when you say it enough times, it sort of becomes true??

    You can hate the war, love the war, be indifferent on the war, but no one lied us into it. There was a major intelligence fuck-up. Democrats and Republicans alike saw the same intelligence -- regime change in Iraq was the stated policy of the Clinton Administration and there are countless records of prominent Democrats advocating Saddam's removal in the face of increasing evidence that Saddam had WMDs.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

    Additionally, WMDs were not the sole reason we went after Saddam. The resolution approved by Congress illustrates this:

    Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

    Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
    Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

    Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

    Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

    Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.


    Were there screw-ups in how the war was executed? Sure. It happens in most wars. (Our entrance into the European theater of WWII didn't go so well, either.) But the course has certainly changed for the better and the end result has not been anything resembling "catastrophic."

    Back to the original topic -- it would seem odd that Rumsfeld, in particular, could be sued for complicity in endangering Pentagon employees on 9-11. He was sitting in his office when the fucking plane hit the building. Sounds kind of risky (and highly unlikely) for a guy who supposedly knew a jetliner was on its way into the side of the building.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2008 6:29 AM GMT
    Falconer !!! all your spewing is Propaganda that the bush admin. wants people to believe, and the likes of the FOX network to spread so more like you will believe the propaganda rather than the true story. Bush's neocon cluster fuck (a great percentage of his cabinet were in that group) in the Project For the New American Century, had this war and big ideas to go to war to gain control of the middle east before 911 ever took place. Clinton refused to go along when they approached him to go to war with Iraq. Read Woodwords (sp?) book and several others that have come out in the last two years where bush's own cabinet members tried to tell him there was no evidence of what he was spreading to the American Public of weapons of mass distruction in Iraq or of the other excuses, like a relationship with Iraq and 911. All the propaganda has been refuted and documented as such. Wake up man, why do you think the public turned on these bushies? about 70% dissaprove of them,because they are being seen for what they are !!! Liers !!! the war was over control of oil in the middle east, and propaganda is what the bushies want you to believe rather than the truth. As we have seen in the last couple years and even in the last two weeks, more and more truth about this bush gang of thugs will be coming out. Will you finally accept the facts the bush administration fucked up our country in a historicly unpresidented way. Overcome the bush talking points because they are proven to not fit, and are totally invalid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2008 6:40 AM GMT
    well, this is a nice little cozy convo we've resurrected on the eve of our savior's birthday.
  • Koaa2

    Posts: 1556

    Dec 23, 2008 1:27 PM GMT
    realifedad said Its my understanding from reading more from Robert Parry (he does a great job of documenting his findings i might add) that the Neocon group The project for the new American Century, were pretty exclusive about keeping their detailed middle East plans to take over Iraq, Afganhistan, Iran, and their plans for trying to control the Caspian Sea Basin Oil (they hoped to keep it from Russian control, they failed to a large degree there too) in and amongst their own group. I did read though that this group came about through the backing of a committee headed by none other than McCain in the 90's, and that they did approach Clinton about going to war to remove Hussein, and he refused. The big question is whether the Obama
    Administration will follow the lead of Clinton, and cover up what the previous administration did, for "the sake of the country". I'd be willing to bet though that had Clinton not covered up the Bush/Reagan "October Surprize" of payoffs to the Iranians so they could improve their election chances, that Gdubya would have never gotten elected in the first place. (is it any wonder daddy Bush, and Clinton have gotten along so well?) I think things have a better chance of coming out now because of the internet exposing so much of this stuff, and its spreading more every day, you see the power brokers the likes of bush/cheney cannot control it like they can the big three media. Maybe this time since obama is so attached/successfull and influenced by the internet that he will set his Dept of Justice lose and let the cards fall where they will. GOD HOW I HOPE !!!!!!!


    I saw that Cheney is going to Court to have all his records turned over to him when he leaves office, so it would make it a lot harder for anyone to follow up on him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 25, 2008 6:32 AM GMT
    FALCONER said
    realifedad


    You can hate the war, love the war, be indifferent on the war, but no one lied us into it.


    Tell that to Dick Armey, who believes that Cheney probably did knowingly lie to him in order to get his support for the war.

    When the former House Republican majority leader says he think he was lied to by the Republican vice president, maybe there's something there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 25, 2008 11:54 PM GMT
    FALCONER said
    realifedadLaura didn't kidnap the lindbergh baby, but her husband and cheney lied us into a catastrophic war...


    And THAT myth has been proven false over and over and over... so why continue to propagate it? I suppose when you say it enough times, it sort of becomes true??

    You can hate the war, love the war, be indifferent on the war, but no one lied us into it.



    I responded to this and I really have to respond to again. The fact that a lot of people may have believed the lies they were told when they passed them on to us doesn't change that they were lies. When people look at intelligence and clearly misrepresent it to others, they are lying. And there doesn't seem to be much question that such misrepresentations occurred.

    Did Bush perhaps believe what he said to us? Did Cheney perhaps believe what he said to us? Maybe. Chances are we'll never know. But somewhere along the way, lies were told. Someone lied us into it. I'm no expert on this, but all you have to do is google "Colin Powell United Nations speech lied."

    Here's one article out of many:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

    It may be impossible to prove that someone knowingly lied to someone else because people can say, "Well, I interpreted the evidence to mean that there were stockpiles." It's awfully hard to prove that someone knowingly lied. But if they can interpret that Saddam had WMDs on evidence that was, at best, flimsy, then I can sure as hell interpret, based on what seems to be rather stronger evidence, that someone lied.