Something to ponder about W

[HungupStrungup]

Not having researched these things myself, I don't swear by this version of the Prez' activities on 9/11. Still, I think the overall impression his staff tried to create after the fact is phony as a seven-dollar bill.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

[LessThanZero]

it's too political.

[sulkygirl]

Yeah, unfortunately, it's not only possible, but extremely plausible.

If the Bush Administration KNEW this was coming, and pretended they didn't, it gave Bush the impetus to push for a war that he'd already planned on waging, and, since he couldn't get backing from the UN, he'd get backing from the American Public, By God!!

This explains an awful lot of the Bullshit, actually.

Have I submitted this link before?? I think that someone on this board listed it somewhere, I've passed it on, and we all get quite the hoot:

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

I want that T-shirt.

Hey, Rope...wasn't this one we got from you??
Whoever it was..Thanks!!

[shabbydoll]

Well, that was scary.

[A rope leash]

I was asking these same questions in September of 2001. What you find when you search the web on these matters is that the American media is nothing more than a propaganda machine, and while you might need to check the facts on something like this particular piece, you don't often see backup documentation at CNN or MSNBC, either.

I've known the bastard was up to no good for quite some time. Remember the New Jersey poet laureate that got into so much trouoble for saying "they" knew? How about that other person, the Congress lady from Georgia? They were literally stifled by the gasps of utter disgust that met their crys for truth. Now, Earth willing, people will begin to see this so-called paranoid fantasy for what it very well could be: THE TRUTH.

Check out sites like informationclearinghouse.info, whatreallyhappened.com, tvnewslies.org, ect. Sure, it's left-wing feed, but it seems very well documented to me.

My latest paranoia on W has to do with the upcoming elections. If he falls behind in the polls, watch the skys for raining death.

[A rope leash]

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2 ... 9/120.html

[HungupStrungup]

If the site is attempting to make the point that W knew about the hijacking plot in advance and did not act, they fall far short of proving any such thing. I don't think that's the intention, and I also don't think it's true. It's clear the various intelligence (and I use that term advisedly) agencies had enough information to foresee what would happen, and had they shared information and not been afraid to act on it, the hijackings could have been stopped. Just think what a hero W would have been if they had taken those 19 guys into custody and announced what a momentous plot had been foiled!

No, he didn't know in advance. In fact, he didn't know much of anything, and that's still true today. I think the lesson to be learned from that website is that someone else is running things. Cheney, Rove & Rumsfeld are the most likely candidates, but whoever it is, someone leaped into action on the morning of September 11th, 2001, and it wasn't POTUS. He was sent to read to elementary school students while other people did things. "George may be the only one with the authority to order the military to shoot down a commercial arliner, but we'll tell him what he needs to know when he needs to know it."

And I thought Reagan was disengaged!

[A rope leash]

The paraniod theory goes like this: Wolfowitz and Co have had a plan on the back burner for quite some time. It's basically called the "Program for the New American Century" or PNAC. Look it up. Since the early '90's they have considered this imperialist program, this pre-emptive strategy, which is what we have in place now. What they needed to get the American people to go along with this plan was a "new Pearl Harbor".

FBI agents that suspected something was up with these guys and the planes were stopped cold in their tracks by their superiors. They tried to communicate, but were stalled. Photos of all the hijackers were provided by the FBI the very next day after the attack.

I suspect they knew, and let it happen. The evidence is there. Check it out!

[A rope leash]

The paraniod theory goes like this: Wolfowitz and Co have had a plan on the back burner for quite some time. It's basically called the "Program for the New American Century" or PNAC. Look it up. Since the early '90's they have considered this imperialist program, this pre-emptive strategy, which is what we have in place now. What they needed to get the American people to go along with this plan was a "new Pearl Harbor".

FBI agents that suspected something was up with these guys and the planes were stopped cold in their tracks by their superiors. They tried to communicate, but were stalled. Photos of all the hijackers were provided by the FBI the very next day after the attack.

I suspect they knew, and let it happen. The evidence is there. Check it out!

htttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le3544.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le3995.htm

http://www.expatica.com/germany.asp?pad ... m_id=33442

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1024.htm

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j080103.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0332/mondo4.php

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le4397.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le3533.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le4247.htm

http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/0 ... Trans.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le4093.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le4064.htm

[bobster]

While I don't have time today (ever) to read all those websites -- and I even have a bit of an open mind about Gore Vidal's theory that 9/11 was a kind of pre-emptive strike (i.e., Osama knew of a plan to attack his bases in Afganistan and acted first) -- there's one major reason I just have a real hard time swallowing the "Bush knew" theory (now a major bumpersticker).

It's that, while he may not care one whit and have no problem causing the deaths of third world peoples with whom he has no connection and probably no understand of their humanity, I just can't imagine these guys letting a bunch of people who come from their same class and upbringing come to such a horrible death.

It's a sad fact of life that we all relate better to people who are, in some way, like us. When I read about the latest high school shooting, for example, I have to admit that I get less upset about it if "jocks" appear to have the victims than "brains."

It isn't right, but we are tribal creatures and we have to work to have sympathy for people who are not like us, or like our friends and family.

I thoroughly dislike Bush -- politics aside, he's a towel-snapper with a nasty, loutish sense of humor and what I might call my natural enemy. If Bush were an English wizard, he'd of clearly been one of the less bright kids at Slytherin.

(Bill Clinton, for all his many and egregious faults, may also have the "popular" type, but he wouldn't be the bully and would probably be friendly to geeks as he was a bit of one himself, secretly. However, Bill would also never been the guy to protect anyone from bullies in any public sort of way, because that might reduce his popularity. Tony Blair would be the geeky kid who, once you got to know him, you'd realize, secretly wanted to be a bully himself.)

Nevertheless, I think it would take a special kind of sociopath to allow this to happen to people so much like themselves, and I just don't see it in these people. Killing third world folks, maybe. They've certainly done it before. Killing stock brokers...I just don't see it.

[King of Confidence]

My latest paranoia on W has to do with the upcoming elections. If he falls behind in the polls, watch the skys for raining death.

Mine too. I.e., watch for a plausible warrant for declaring martial law and suspending the election. Because it's obvious that things are already beginning to trend away from Bush's re-election, and if General Clark enters the race, Bush and Co. will be in serious political jeopardy.

The question behind "What did he know and when" is, What is the limit of what Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Delay, Rice, Bush can bring themselves to do to gain and maintain power? Assasination? A 9/11 Redux? Tacitly inviting N. Korea to lob a test missile into Alaska?

Even if they truly didn't know what and when about 9/11 (and I don't think that clip really establishes anything substantive), it seems likely they had an idea that something was imminent, and planned to use whatever it was to take the country down the PNAC / neocon path we find ourselves on now.

If Clark or Dean really get going, if the NYT or Washington Post gets their hands on (and has the courage to publish) the 28 pages from the 9/11 Congressional Report, if Blair goes down, if Saddam gets into the hands of the International Tribunal and starts to talk about the old days with Rumsfeld (the real reason we don't want the UN in Iraq?) -- Look out.

Ugh. I sound like a nut. Need to get off political sites for the rest of the weekend. Time for some college football.

King of Conspiracy Theories

[laughingcrow]

The terrorist threat of planes as missiles had been around for years before, they knew there was an incident about to occur, but either made an oversight, or hadn't prepared properly for action against the attack.

That stuff about not shooting down a plane...they did, the one they told everyone Todd Beamer and the passengers overpowered, and Neil Young made a song about it. This is not such a bad thing though, It gives those poor families a sense of pride, albeit false.

It's not W we have to watch out for...it's the people who pull his strings.

[LessThanZero]

Yeah Laughingcrow, one of the most surprising things i learned from Bowling for Columbine, was the fact that the school shooters had fantasized about hijacking a plane and crashing it into a major city.

hmm.

[A rope leash]

Bobster, I know certain Texans that would see nothing wrong with taking out a few thousand New Yorkers for the better good of the nation.

If you don't want to slag though all those links, just look at this new one:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le4582.htm

[A rope leash]

For those that just can't believe a political entity in the USA would let thousands die in order to establish themselves as sole authority does not understand that establishing authoritative control is what the plan is all about.

They don't care if people die, or if New Yorkers die, or servicemen, or you, or if they are "found out" by left wing media. They're not worried about public opinion, because they are not giving up control anyway.

So, in a great display of typical despotic thinking, they are leading us on imperialistic quests guised as vengence and precautionary duty, while allowing the working economy at home to fail, mostly by looting the treasury with tax cuts.

Sure, if they can get re-elected, they'll do it that way. Even if they lose, they'll have two months with which to complete a coup.

What we need now is a major whistle-blower. Too bad they've got everybody terrified. Look at poor Dr. Kelly. That's how it works: under the ultimate threat of death. They've made it even easier with the PATRIOT Act, which was apparently passed into law without having even been read by many of the representatives who voted for it. Bad things happened, so we need to pass some kind of law right now, or the people will think we are doing nothing. Perhaps, also, with the sting of the attack still on our faces, it was impossible to vote NO on anything called the "PATRIOT Act".

Paranoia has a source. It's based on fact.

[bobster]

ARL -- I'll take a look at the site, but I'm beyond skeptical about this kind of thing and it's probably counterproductive.

Also, ask yourself, why would they bother? I know some of them just hate to lose, but the right already has about 98% of what they want. (Under Clinton, they had a mere 93%. Under Gore, they would have had 93.2%. Under Lieberman, they would have 99.99999999%. Under Clark...I have no idea, but I'd be surprised if it went under 90%)

Even if Dean manages to get elected, and that percentage drops to, say, 89% -- which would be a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong -- things will not change that much, and certainly not all that quickly. The ruling oligarchs will still be in place though, if Dean really does his job right, they'll be a bit less powerful eight years later. I just don't see a strong enough motive. If Nixon didn't try it during Watergate, when something like that could actually have happened (remember, many, many people felt very threatened by the hippie conspiracy, and not just those in the White House), I just don't see it happening now.

No, if Dean gets elected, the Right will mostly like just decide "Dean=Carter; McCain=Reagan" and go about finding ways to make Dean look weak.

I'm not saying that facism is impossible in the U.S., not by a long shot. I'm just convinced that, if it comes, it'll look pretty much like the way things are today, except SLIGHTLY more narcotized. It'll look a lot more like "Brave New World" than "1984" -- in fact, I'm not 100% sure we're not there now, so pliant is the press and the public.

So, again, why bother with a coup? George W. might find it a blow to his ego, but I don't see this being such a big deal to the real powers that be.

[bobster]

ARL --

Read a few pages in and I'm stopping 'cause I see where this is going. These kind of theories always seem to assume that the government and the military are this well oiled, perfectly timed machine that never makes a mistake or fails to do preciesely what it's supposed except by some sort of sinister plan.

The entire chain of logic points to things that are either natural limitations of the system (like delays in responses) or major or minor-league foul-ups or personal failings. The writer presents this as "proof", but at best it's weak circumstantial evidence (assuming, that is, the all the facts cited are 100% correct.). If some of this is true, it could be good to publicize to correct flaws in the system (or the show up the current administration as not quite so competent as it would like us to believe), but not to prove malicious intent in this case.

The argument that the Bush Administration benefits -- while obviously true, holds zero water. Without Watergate, Jimmy Carter would likely not have been elected. Did he cause Watergate? Did he somehow cause President Ford to pardon Nixon or to "free" Poland during that last debate?

Again, there's not a lot I would put past the Bush cliques. I truly believe they believe that the lives of non-Americans (particulalry poor ones) are pretty much second or third class lives that may be snuffed out if they become too inconvenient or who have the bad luck to live near those who are. Sadly, however, this is also the (unexamined) opinion of most Americans. It is also probably the opinion of most people (just in favor their home country or ethnic or religious group).

I also think there well may something to the Saudi link -- as a writer I sort of grove on the idea that the whole Iraq war was a sort of warlike form of capitulation. I recently read an article that made a fairly credible case that Al Queada might have blackmailed the Saudis -- and possibly us as well. One interesting fact is that we'll be putting new permanent U.S. bases into Iraq as a replacement for the bases we're leaving in Saudi Arabia. (Those bases, which are on holy ground in his view, are, of course, Osama's #1 stated complaint against the U.S.)

However, that's still a long way from proving (or even indicating) complicity in 9/11. In any case, I think if we really want to change things, their are literally thousands of other things on which we should be concentrating. Among other problems, making these sorts of outrageous charges with anything less than very strong evidence is TERRRIBLE for the image of the left. Let's not give them plausible reasons to call us crackpots.

[noiseradio]

I'm not a Bush fan, but I think the allegations that he knoew this was coming and used it for political purposes is utter bullshit.

I think it more likely that this was a complete shock to the administration, who then seized the opportunity to force some things down the people's gaping maw that we never would have let them get away with except for the shell shock.

[A rope leash]

So, if you had read the entire article, you would see that the facts are backed up with a rather lengthy source guide at the bottom. Of course, some folks would rather "believe" in something than have the truth about something.

I say, that if one looks at the timeline of events, it's pretty damning. Call me a loon if you like, but time will tell. I don't trust Republicans, or most Democrats, either. I most certainly must be crazy then, eh? Isn't that the usual rap?

Kerry, Lieberman, they might as well be Repubs. What ever it is, you have to feel good about yourself. I feel fine. I'm rarely wrong about anything, but I sure hope I'm wrong about ol' Bushy Boy. For the good of us all...

[noiseradio]

Rope,

First, my original post was addressed to the multimedia presentation on the Take Back The Media web page, and not any of the multitude of articles that you posted. I didn't read any of the response posts until today, as I wanted my reaction to be based solely on what the original question was. And I think that presentation is bullshit. It's propaganda decrying propaganda. It assumes a very great deal and draws conclusions that are impossible to draw. We don't know what was actually going through Bush's head. Maybe very little. We regularly refer to the guy as a dunderhead. So maybe what that presentation proves is that he's too dumb to lead. Maybe he made poor choices in responding to 9/11. But the fact that he read books to children doesn't mean he had foreknowledge of the attacks. There's just nothing there (other than card-stacking, glittering generalities, and a creative use of Flash) to prove that "Bush Knew."

I stand by what I said earlier. I think he has performed poorly in the tragedy's wake, and I think he has opportunistically used it to push through an otherwise unpopular agenda with the support of people who think Lee Greenwood is a good songwriter.

Second, after your hostile scolding, I read the article on themoscownews.com, and I perused its source material. While it's very thought-provoking, and effectively written, it still proves little except that the author knows how to find sources that already agree with him. When you cite http://www.whatreallyhappened.com, http://www.emperor'sclothes.com, and http://www.bushisafatbastard.com (or whatever along those lines), along with collections of dissident journalists and articles from the radical left press and literati--when these are your only sources, then your bias makes any conclusions you draw unbelievably suspect. For the same reason that I would yell "Bullshit" if the article were lockstep in support of everything Bush has done, with sources like The Limbaugh Letter, George Will, the private diaries of William "Lucky" Bennet, and http://www.welovetherightwingsomuchthat ... d.com--for the same reasons, I call this article bullshit.

I don't want to believe anything about the president. I think he's a bad president. But calling him a willing participant in the single biggest terrorist attack in our nation's history--all for the purposes of political gain and power politics--better have a whole lot more evidence than a handful of far left blogs and left-wing speculation.

Finally, ideology is bullshit.

[miss buenos aires]

http://www.welovetherightwingsomuchthat ... emoved.com

Can you believe this isn't a real site? Someone should get on that!

[A rope leash]

I'm so left it feels like right to me.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le4594.htm

[noiseradio]

Psychobabble and journalism are not the same thing.

[A rope leash]

It just a shrink examining the life of GWB from what he can extrapolate from whatever resource he could find. If the "facts" used here were deniable, then it would amount to slander, I'd say. I thought it was a fun read. I've seen alcoholics that have switched from hootch to hallelujah, and it ain't exactly gorgeous. So, I can relate to it.

So, I don't know who ya'll trust for news or "journalism", or psychiatric help, but I go to the usual outlets pretty much like everyone else. I also go to sites like the ones I've posted to feed my need for something a little more in depth. I believe these sites have enough credibility to at least give a nod of recognition to. The political right-wing has their own sites, as well.

I saw a newspaper in the shopping mart the other day that said GWB was planning to attack the moon! You can't say it couldn't happen. We'd kick their ass, too!

[noiseradio]

I don't like the political right-wing sites either.

And we would totally kick the moonmen's asses, assuming they had asses. With all of Georgie's pent-up mommyrage and who-knows-what space missles we already have? They'd be the cosmic equivalent of toast.