[dinoparty]

I've always had a hard time believing the cover-up theory. What exactly was the motivation? To prevent the need to a military response against militant Islam? To prevent panic? To prevent the country blaming Clinton for allowing it to happen? I suppose all three of these theories have been bandied about, but, I'm sorry, none of them seem convincing to me.

[threeleftsmakearight]

Considering the election was only 3 months away, it's plausible there was ample reason to make sure people didn't think a terrorist attack downed that plane. Remember, bill was running on "PEACE and Prosperity". How would he be able to reconcile that so-called peace with an attack?

[agere_contra]

I guess the thing to do is to examine (or re-examine) the apparently excellent evidence for a missile attack and worry about WHY later.

[RedCell]

What exactly was the motivation?

That's the main question I have after reading this thread.

[kinsman redeemer]

I'll take choice B - "To prevent panic" and thus bring harm the economy.

There's something to be said for choices A and C. But "B" is the Best answer.

[SUSSA]

What exactly was the motivation?

###

To keep people flying. Nobody would fly an American airline if it was known one was shot down by terrorists. The airlines were already in trouble and the mass failure of the US air carriers would have sent the economy into a deep recession or triggered a depression. The administration didn't need that kind of trouble.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Why did Clinton go into the Balkins over a hyped and nonexistent genocide? Why did Clinton do little, or nothing effective, against other known terrorists attacks on U.S. citizens, U.S. Embassies (an embassy is considered an extension of that country' soil so it was as if they had attacked America, ala 9/11), and a U.S. Naval vessel, the Cole, and why did he treat the first World trade Center bombing as a criminal act rather than a terrorist attack after bin Laden had declared war on the USA verbally? I suggest it was because he was currying favor with the Muslims, especially Arafat, in hopes of an Israel-PLA peace accord and a Nobel Prize for himself, as if that is worth anything anymore.

The Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building fits the same cover up MO.

My first indication that the course of the investigation of flt.800 was the appearance of the top FBI man for NY on TV right after the crash. He looked confident and determined when he said, "We will get the people who did this, all of them." Shortly afterward he looked crestfallen and quiet and then he disappeared from public view altogether.

[ml/nj]

What exactly was the motivation?

You assume (incorrectly) that the missiles were fired by (Islamic) terrorists. They weren't. They were fired (accidentally) by our own navy. President Reagan would have covered it up too.

ML/NJ

[Mr. Silverback]

Imagine, for instance, the number of people who would have to be in on it. First you've got the FBI investigators, then you've got anyone from the CIA who uncovered any evidence of said plot at a later date. Then you've got everyone in the NTSB investigation. Then, if it was a failed U.S. missile test as some fruit loops here maintain (or an intentional military shootdown, as some even fruitier fruit loops maintain) you've got people on the vehicle that fired the missile (which would almost certainly have to be a ship) and everyone in a position to know the vehicle came back missing a missile. For example, USS normandy was in the area, but she came back to port with full magazines.

We're looking at hundreds, maybe thousands of people, and none of them are speaking up. Simply not possible.

[snowrip]

Ditto.

Also, if terorists had that level of sophistication as far as their assets were concerned, why no 2nd, 3rd, 4th attck and so on?

Did any terrorist organization even claim responsibility for this?

[cgbg]

I've always had a hard time believing the cover-up theory. What exactly was the motivation? To prevent the need to a military response against militant Islam? To prevent panic? To prevent the country blaming Clinton for allowing it to happen? I suppose all three of these theories have been bandied about, but, I'm sorry, none of them seem convincing to me.

imho all three are partially correct.

You need to understand the Clintonoid mentality to make sense of it.

They came to office with an agenda--confused, disjointed, stupid--but it was their agenda.

They did not want terrorism to supplant their agenda--it is just that simple.

Islamic fundamentalists had begun a series of attacks on the United States in the 90s, and the Clinton administration policy was deny and cover up, and then deny some more.

I am convinced that if 911 happened under Clinton he would have devised some sort of phony explanation--and intimidated anyone who had evidence to the contrary.

[Uriah_lost]

I've never been willing or able to believe military involvement but I can't discount other things completely. I had some acquaintances on that plane and they were all family to me(I was TWA at the time) and I really wanted to believe that it was nobodies fault, just an equipment failure or some such. For 800 to have come down like the official story said it did, I think you'd have to put all the parts of a Rolex watch in a box and shake it twice and pull out a fully assembled Submariner to convince me.
I have just accepted that I'll never know the truth or, at least, any truth that I'll be satisfied with.

[rfp1234]

--What exactly was the motivation? To prevent the need to a military response against militant Islam?--

Yes. It was an election year. The last thing BJ wanted to do was being forced to take military action of any kind, particularly if Saddam was involved in financing the terrorists - the public would have clamored for war.

[ladyinred]

I think most of it was so the airline industry would not be wiped out, and because Clinton did not want any problems on his watch. He is all about peace and prosperity to to this day. There is a lot of evidence this was a terrorist attack, and on 911 several prominent news media people blurted out the truth of it. It has gone back into the underground now, but the evidence is credible if one cares to look.

[Eva]

I have always considered the motivation for the cover up to be the same as the motivation for the cover up or avoidance of the truth anyway, of all the other incidents that occurred during the Clinton administration, no guts. Clinton would have had to do something if he admitted that attacks were occurring on US interests. He was chicken.

Look, the left hates the military, they hate any show of US strength, for any reason. Clinton is a sixties kind'a guy, he can't bring himself to support anything militarily that would benefit or protect the US.