9/11 Anniversary
One of the best ways I know to honor the victims of 9/11 is to question the Bush administration's conspiracy theory.
They have a clear track record of lying and hiding the truth. Why should something as important as 9/11 be any different?
Neocons wanted to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11, but lamented in Project for a New American Century documents that they needed a catalyzing event, a "new Pearl Harbor," to sell them to the public.
Coincidentally, nine months into their administration, they got their event.
If I were a criminal investigator, I would chalk up motive and opportunity to the Bush-Cheney Neocons.
And they certainly appear guilty. Bush and Cheney have so much to hide that they would only talk to a non-independent, serioulsy compromised investigative commission off the record and only for one brief "cordial" chat. And that was in April, 2004, two and a half years after 9/11, due to obstruction and foot dragging. That's longer than it took to launch two defense contractor, oil speculating projects, also known as wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
CNN, April 30. 2004:
If you were writing a dime-store crime novel you couldn't create a more obviously guilty character than George W. Bush.
UPDATE: Thank you, Mike, for your post on 9/11. The South African blogger -- and astute observer of world affairs -- points to an Alternet article that tells us:
Seems Bush isn't credible.
Even our own FBI claims there isn't enough evidence to make a case against Bin Laden. The confession tape? The one they supposedly just happened upon in a house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in late 2001? The one with the fat Osama? Great for fooling the people, but criminal investigators aren't paid to be gullible patsies.
One of the best ways I know to honor the victims of 9/11 is to question the Bush administration's conspiracy theory.
They have a clear track record of lying and hiding the truth. Why should something as important as 9/11 be any different?
Neocons wanted to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11, but lamented in Project for a New American Century documents that they needed a catalyzing event, a "new Pearl Harbor," to sell them to the public.
Coincidentally, nine months into their administration, they got their event.
If I were a criminal investigator, I would chalk up motive and opportunity to the Bush-Cheney Neocons.
And they certainly appear guilty. Bush and Cheney have so much to hide that they would only talk to a non-independent, serioulsy compromised investigative commission off the record and only for one brief "cordial" chat. And that was in April, 2004, two and a half years after 9/11, due to obstruction and foot dragging. That's longer than it took to launch two defense contractor, oil speculating projects, also known as wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
CNN, April 30. 2004:
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney answered questions from the commissioners for more than three hours.
The president dismissed suggestions that he appeared before the panel with Cheney to coordinate stories.
"If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place," Bush said. "We answered all their questions."
Bush said it was important for him and Cheney to appear together so that commission members could "see our body language... how we work together."
If you were writing a dime-store crime novel you couldn't create a more obviously guilty character than George W. Bush.
UPDATE: Thank you, Mike, for your post on 9/11. The South African blogger -- and astute observer of world affairs -- points to an Alternet article that tells us:
outside the United States, many are skeptical that al Qaeda was really responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Sixteen thousand people in 17 countries -- allies and adversaries in Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East -- were asked the open-ended question: "Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?"
On average, fewer than half of all respondents said al Qaeda (although there was significant variation between countries and regions). Fifteen percent said the United States government itself was responsible for the attacks, 7 percent cited Israel, and fully 1 in 4 said they just didn't know.
Seems Bush isn't credible.
Even our own FBI claims there isn't enough evidence to make a case against Bin Laden. The confession tape? The one they supposedly just happened upon in a house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in late 2001? The one with the fat Osama? Great for fooling the people, but criminal investigators aren't paid to be gullible patsies.
