Friday, September 17, 2004
The Great 9/11 Conspiracy
"Welcome to our fortress tall,
Take some time to show you around.
Impossible to break these walls,
For you see the steel is much too strong.
Computer banks to rule the world,
Instruments to sight the stars.
Possibly I’ve seen too much,
Hangar 18, I know too much..." ~ 'Hangar 18' - Megadeth
"Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject – how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years." -
Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Stanley Hilton
"George Bush campaigned for president on a promise to reform the Pentagon. Rumsfeld and Bush would not be the first to try to walk away from the two-war standard. Indeed, President Clinton and his three defense secretaries all tried and failed to do so. In 1993, the late Les Aspin floated a "win-hold-win" approach to solving the two-war dilemma; his idea was that air power could halt a second invader while ground and joint forces won the first war and then redeployed to the second. When this idea was revealed in the press -- and to angry allies -- the Clinton Administration quickly disavowed "win-hold-win." The two-war standard thus was enshrined as the measure of U.S. military preeminence, and subsequent attempts to lower the standard failed, in large part thanks to the complaints of the Republican Congress.
Yet while the two-war standard remained official American policy, it was also apparent that the United States no longer had a force that met the standard. What became known as the"strategy-resources" gap metastasized to the point where even Clinton Administration officials estimated it to be $100 billion per year. Not only was the active-duty force too small, but modernization slowed to a crawl, force readiness fell, military pay scales lagged, the quality of military life declined, and innovation was stifled.
These are the many problems that have provoked the Bush Administration's "strategic review" and provided the impetus behind replacing the two-war standard. But if Secretary Rumsfeld is to succeed where his predecessors have failed, he must define a new but convincing way to maintain American military dominance and the world leadership that rests upon it. In the past, getting rid of the two-war standard has been a slogan for transformation zealots willing to make deep force cuts to pay for new weapons. But that would be robbing Peter to pay Paul; the real solution is to retain an adequate force and to increase defense spending.
The two-war standard, for all its drawbacks, does express an elemental truth about what it means to be the world's "sole superpower." The Pentagon's own 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review expressed it well: "If the United States were to forego its ability to defeat aggression in more than one theater at a time, our standing as a global power, as the security partner of choice, and [as] the leader of the international community, would be called into question. Indeed, some allies would undoubtedly read a one-war capability as a signal that the United States, if heavily engaged elsewhere, would no longer be able to help defend their interests." Anything less than a two-war capability tends to become, in effect, a no-war capability.
There is no denying that the canonical version of the two-war standard needs to be reviewed. A Chinese strike against Taiwan looms as likely and as demanding as any other major regional conflict, yet this scenario is nowhere accounted for in Pentagon force planning. And despite a decade's worth of no-fly-zone and other constabulary duties, there has yet to be a formal reckoning of these requirements for sizing U.S. forces.
The concern is that the administration will abandon the two-war standard without simultaneously offering a substitute. The burden of proof now falls to President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld to set for a new standard that is an unambiguous expression of his commitment to restore the military strength needed to maintain American global leadership. They need to remind both our allies and our adversaries that a superpower still lives here." ~ 'Defense & the "Two-War Standard' - May 11, 2001 Memorandum to Opinion Leaders, Gary Schmitt & Tom Donnelly, PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
It's apparent that Stanley Hilton has done his homework on the much-maligned Project For The New American Century and its statements. However, what this ambulance-chasing lawyer...or in this case, conspiracy-chasing lawyer...sees as a grand conspiracy by the United States Government to dominate the world through military prowess and power, I see it as a grand coincidence. The U.S. has always strived for military superiority throughout the world ever since the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, when the FDR Administration realized that the best defense is an overwhelming offense; a strategy that maintained itself throughout the many great campaigns of the Cold War, including Korea and Vietnam (those two theaters of U.S. military operations cannot rightly be called "wars" since they are both subsequent symptoms of the overall Cold War).
The collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in the U.S. victory in the Cold War, but also brought with it the threat of U.S. military stagnation as well as a chaotic vacuum that spread throughout the Middle East from Libya to Afghanistan. The fact that the U.S. was even a presence in the Middle East in the first place dates back to the beginnings of the Cold War when the U.S. Government acknowledged the potential dangers of allowing the then-Soviet Union free access to the Middle East's vast oil resources. The U.S. military presence in Western Europe as well as our government's endorsement of Israel as an established democracy in the Middle East are more than just mere simultaneous coincidences. They were responses to the growing Soviet threat as well as competent measures of containing Communism within the Soviet Union and Asia, the latter which was evidenced by the U.S.' involvement in the Southeast Asia theater in the early 1960s.
Indeed, the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan was the direct result of Afghanistan's establishment of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1978, and was meant to halt the spread of democracy in that region, just as the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was meant to halt the spread of communism into Southeast Asia.
The end of the Cold War brought about the threat of obsoletion toward the war hawks on both sides of the same alliance against the former Soviet Union. The lack of a consistent and tangible enemy meant that the U.S. war machine lacked justification for its existence, just as the lack of a consistent and tangible enemy threatened Osama Bin Laden's stature as a leader and freedom fighter for his people in Afghanistan; the mujahadeen were U.S. allies in the region against the Soviet aggression during the Soviet/Afghan War of the late-70s and the better part of the '80s.
The Gulf War, as we all should know, was a direct result of U.S. betrayal of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. A betrayal that was made evident by the Iran-Contra Affair, when it was discovered that the U.S. had secretly sold arms to Iran in exchange for money to be used to finance the Contra rebels in Nicaragua to assist them in overthrowing the leftist Sandinista government. When the scandal was made public worldwide, Saddam Hussein was understandably angered at the U.S. for selling arms to his sworn enemy across the border in Iran. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was a direct result of the economic catastrophe that had nearly consumed Iraq after its eight years of war with Iran; while Iraq was impoverished, little Kuwait next door was thriving in its oil rich economy. The opportunity was obviously tempting. After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. established a military presence in neighboring Saudi Arabia and ultimately used the country as a base of operations to oust Saddam's armies from Kuwait and establish a permanent U.S. presence in the Middle East after 1991, which enraged Osama Bin Laden and gave him sound reason (in his own mind, anyway) to declare a new enemy of his growing organization, Al Qaeda, since Saudi Arabia happened to be Bin Laden's homeland.
The rest, as they say, is history. Two years after the Gulf War, Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center. Seven years after the Gulf War, the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya. Nine years after the Gulf War, the bombing of the USS Cole. Ten years after the Gulf War, the World Trade Center's twin towers fall.
So did the U.S. have a hand in all of that? Inadvertently, yes. Through our government's own foreign policies and its involvement in containing Communism during the Cold War, it unwittingly triggered the sequence of events that ultimately led to 9/11.
Which is why this conspiracy-chasing lawyer, Stanley Hilton, is a marvelous specimen of profound, opportunistic idiocy. (Zelmo's Note: The guy is a fucking moron.)
For example, it's quite evident that during the interview, that he's ripped a page straight from Michael Moore's equally idiotic propaganda piece, Fahrenheit 9/11:
"SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It’s not just incompetence – in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on September 11th – when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, “seen on television the first plane attack the first tower.” And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government ordered thing"
Here is the CNN transcript of Bush's account of 9/11 as it happened that morning:
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well...
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack." ~
President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
"At approximately 8:48 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center were broadcast on live television." ~ An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11.
Stanley Hilton is dead wrong in this regard. I personally remember seeing pictures of the burning World Trade Center tower minutes before seeing footage of the second plane hitting the second tower as it happened on live TV. A recollection that is verified in the article that I posted above. While Bush's comments are confusing at first glance, when you read his account a second time...
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it."
...it could be taken in any number of ways. Either he recalls seeing actual video footage of the first plane hitting the tower before the second plane hit, or he simply saw the images of the first tower just moments after the first plane hit being broadcast on live TV, 15 minutes before the second plane struck the second tower.
Either way, what we have here is another classic example of a desperate attempt by the liberals and Democrats to nail Bush for what is, at best, evidence based largely on speculation. The last article that I posted above asks what Bush was doing during that entire 15 minutes before he saw the images of the World Trade Center just moments after the first plane hit and before the second plane struck the towers, even though Bush stated in that same interview that he at first thought that the first plane striking the World Trade Center was the result of a "terrible pilot". It simply could not have been feasible at that time to assume that the first plane striking the World Trade Center was a terrorist attack, given the time frame that the hijacking and subsequent crash into the first World Trade Center tower had occurred. Quite frankly, it could have only been after the second plane struck the World Trade Center that one could truly be certain that this was no accident.
One can draw a comparison between a terrorist attack and a serial killer; one death does not make a serial killer. Likewise, one could not have possibly known within the timeframe of the attacks that the first plane striking the World Trade Center was a terrorist attack, even when given the weather conditions and unlikeliness of a passenger jet flying between the high rises of downtown Manhattan just shy of 9:00 in the morning on a Tuesday; one could not have proven, much less assumed, beyond a reasonable doubt that the first plane striking the World Trade Center was not the result of some horrific error or circumstance unrelated to terrorism within the timeframe of roughly half an hour.
So in the end, what do we have here aside from liberal speculation? Not much. An indictment of President Bush in a court of law? Don't make me laugh. Now, I'm no law student or even remotely an expert of the law and/or due process, but I know bullshit when I see it, no matter which direction that it comes from. I can see through Bush's bullshit just as well as I can see through this Hilton fucker's bullshit. In this instance though, accusing the President of the United States of ordering the 9/11 attacks is akin to accusing Franklin D. Roosevelt of ordering the Pearl Harbor attacks in 1941.
Horseshit.
If it looks like horseshit, smells like horseshit, and attracts flies...it's probably horseshit.
I hate liberal radicals. Especially when they come in the form of ambulance-chasing lawyers with an obvious political agenda.
(0) comments
Take some time to show you around.
Impossible to break these walls,
For you see the steel is much too strong.
Computer banks to rule the world,
Instruments to sight the stars.
Possibly I’ve seen too much,
Hangar 18, I know too much..." ~ 'Hangar 18' - Megadeth
"Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject – how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years." -
Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Stanley Hilton
"George Bush campaigned for president on a promise to reform the Pentagon. Rumsfeld and Bush would not be the first to try to walk away from the two-war standard. Indeed, President Clinton and his three defense secretaries all tried and failed to do so. In 1993, the late Les Aspin floated a "win-hold-win" approach to solving the two-war dilemma; his idea was that air power could halt a second invader while ground and joint forces won the first war and then redeployed to the second. When this idea was revealed in the press -- and to angry allies -- the Clinton Administration quickly disavowed "win-hold-win." The two-war standard thus was enshrined as the measure of U.S. military preeminence, and subsequent attempts to lower the standard failed, in large part thanks to the complaints of the Republican Congress.
Yet while the two-war standard remained official American policy, it was also apparent that the United States no longer had a force that met the standard. What became known as the"strategy-resources" gap metastasized to the point where even Clinton Administration officials estimated it to be $100 billion per year. Not only was the active-duty force too small, but modernization slowed to a crawl, force readiness fell, military pay scales lagged, the quality of military life declined, and innovation was stifled.
These are the many problems that have provoked the Bush Administration's "strategic review" and provided the impetus behind replacing the two-war standard. But if Secretary Rumsfeld is to succeed where his predecessors have failed, he must define a new but convincing way to maintain American military dominance and the world leadership that rests upon it. In the past, getting rid of the two-war standard has been a slogan for transformation zealots willing to make deep force cuts to pay for new weapons. But that would be robbing Peter to pay Paul; the real solution is to retain an adequate force and to increase defense spending.
The two-war standard, for all its drawbacks, does express an elemental truth about what it means to be the world's "sole superpower." The Pentagon's own 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review expressed it well: "If the United States were to forego its ability to defeat aggression in more than one theater at a time, our standing as a global power, as the security partner of choice, and [as] the leader of the international community, would be called into question. Indeed, some allies would undoubtedly read a one-war capability as a signal that the United States, if heavily engaged elsewhere, would no longer be able to help defend their interests." Anything less than a two-war capability tends to become, in effect, a no-war capability.
There is no denying that the canonical version of the two-war standard needs to be reviewed. A Chinese strike against Taiwan looms as likely and as demanding as any other major regional conflict, yet this scenario is nowhere accounted for in Pentagon force planning. And despite a decade's worth of no-fly-zone and other constabulary duties, there has yet to be a formal reckoning of these requirements for sizing U.S. forces.
The concern is that the administration will abandon the two-war standard without simultaneously offering a substitute. The burden of proof now falls to President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld to set for a new standard that is an unambiguous expression of his commitment to restore the military strength needed to maintain American global leadership. They need to remind both our allies and our adversaries that a superpower still lives here." ~ 'Defense & the "Two-War Standard' - May 11, 2001 Memorandum to Opinion Leaders, Gary Schmitt & Tom Donnelly, PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
It's apparent that Stanley Hilton has done his homework on the much-maligned Project For The New American Century and its statements. However, what this ambulance-chasing lawyer...or in this case, conspiracy-chasing lawyer...sees as a grand conspiracy by the United States Government to dominate the world through military prowess and power, I see it as a grand coincidence. The U.S. has always strived for military superiority throughout the world ever since the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, when the FDR Administration realized that the best defense is an overwhelming offense; a strategy that maintained itself throughout the many great campaigns of the Cold War, including Korea and Vietnam (those two theaters of U.S. military operations cannot rightly be called "wars" since they are both subsequent symptoms of the overall Cold War).
The collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in the U.S. victory in the Cold War, but also brought with it the threat of U.S. military stagnation as well as a chaotic vacuum that spread throughout the Middle East from Libya to Afghanistan. The fact that the U.S. was even a presence in the Middle East in the first place dates back to the beginnings of the Cold War when the U.S. Government acknowledged the potential dangers of allowing the then-Soviet Union free access to the Middle East's vast oil resources. The U.S. military presence in Western Europe as well as our government's endorsement of Israel as an established democracy in the Middle East are more than just mere simultaneous coincidences. They were responses to the growing Soviet threat as well as competent measures of containing Communism within the Soviet Union and Asia, the latter which was evidenced by the U.S.' involvement in the Southeast Asia theater in the early 1960s.
Indeed, the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan was the direct result of Afghanistan's establishment of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1978, and was meant to halt the spread of democracy in that region, just as the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was meant to halt the spread of communism into Southeast Asia.
The end of the Cold War brought about the threat of obsoletion toward the war hawks on both sides of the same alliance against the former Soviet Union. The lack of a consistent and tangible enemy meant that the U.S. war machine lacked justification for its existence, just as the lack of a consistent and tangible enemy threatened Osama Bin Laden's stature as a leader and freedom fighter for his people in Afghanistan; the mujahadeen were U.S. allies in the region against the Soviet aggression during the Soviet/Afghan War of the late-70s and the better part of the '80s.
The Gulf War, as we all should know, was a direct result of U.S. betrayal of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. A betrayal that was made evident by the Iran-Contra Affair, when it was discovered that the U.S. had secretly sold arms to Iran in exchange for money to be used to finance the Contra rebels in Nicaragua to assist them in overthrowing the leftist Sandinista government. When the scandal was made public worldwide, Saddam Hussein was understandably angered at the U.S. for selling arms to his sworn enemy across the border in Iran. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was a direct result of the economic catastrophe that had nearly consumed Iraq after its eight years of war with Iran; while Iraq was impoverished, little Kuwait next door was thriving in its oil rich economy. The opportunity was obviously tempting. After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. established a military presence in neighboring Saudi Arabia and ultimately used the country as a base of operations to oust Saddam's armies from Kuwait and establish a permanent U.S. presence in the Middle East after 1991, which enraged Osama Bin Laden and gave him sound reason (in his own mind, anyway) to declare a new enemy of his growing organization, Al Qaeda, since Saudi Arabia happened to be Bin Laden's homeland.
The rest, as they say, is history. Two years after the Gulf War, Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center. Seven years after the Gulf War, the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya. Nine years after the Gulf War, the bombing of the USS Cole. Ten years after the Gulf War, the World Trade Center's twin towers fall.
So did the U.S. have a hand in all of that? Inadvertently, yes. Through our government's own foreign policies and its involvement in containing Communism during the Cold War, it unwittingly triggered the sequence of events that ultimately led to 9/11.
Which is why this conspiracy-chasing lawyer, Stanley Hilton, is a marvelous specimen of profound, opportunistic idiocy. (Zelmo's Note: The guy is a fucking moron.)
For example, it's quite evident that during the interview, that he's ripped a page straight from Michael Moore's equally idiotic propaganda piece, Fahrenheit 9/11:
"SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It’s not just incompetence – in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on September 11th – when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, “seen on television the first plane attack the first tower.” And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government ordered thing"
Here is the CNN transcript of Bush's account of 9/11 as it happened that morning:
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well...
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack." ~
President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
"At approximately 8:48 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center were broadcast on live television." ~ An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11.
Stanley Hilton is dead wrong in this regard. I personally remember seeing pictures of the burning World Trade Center tower minutes before seeing footage of the second plane hitting the second tower as it happened on live TV. A recollection that is verified in the article that I posted above. While Bush's comments are confusing at first glance, when you read his account a second time...
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it."
...it could be taken in any number of ways. Either he recalls seeing actual video footage of the first plane hitting the tower before the second plane hit, or he simply saw the images of the first tower just moments after the first plane hit being broadcast on live TV, 15 minutes before the second plane struck the second tower.
Either way, what we have here is another classic example of a desperate attempt by the liberals and Democrats to nail Bush for what is, at best, evidence based largely on speculation. The last article that I posted above asks what Bush was doing during that entire 15 minutes before he saw the images of the World Trade Center just moments after the first plane hit and before the second plane struck the towers, even though Bush stated in that same interview that he at first thought that the first plane striking the World Trade Center was the result of a "terrible pilot". It simply could not have been feasible at that time to assume that the first plane striking the World Trade Center was a terrorist attack, given the time frame that the hijacking and subsequent crash into the first World Trade Center tower had occurred. Quite frankly, it could have only been after the second plane struck the World Trade Center that one could truly be certain that this was no accident.
One can draw a comparison between a terrorist attack and a serial killer; one death does not make a serial killer. Likewise, one could not have possibly known within the timeframe of the attacks that the first plane striking the World Trade Center was a terrorist attack, even when given the weather conditions and unlikeliness of a passenger jet flying between the high rises of downtown Manhattan just shy of 9:00 in the morning on a Tuesday; one could not have proven, much less assumed, beyond a reasonable doubt that the first plane striking the World Trade Center was not the result of some horrific error or circumstance unrelated to terrorism within the timeframe of roughly half an hour.
So in the end, what do we have here aside from liberal speculation? Not much. An indictment of President Bush in a court of law? Don't make me laugh. Now, I'm no law student or even remotely an expert of the law and/or due process, but I know bullshit when I see it, no matter which direction that it comes from. I can see through Bush's bullshit just as well as I can see through this Hilton fucker's bullshit. In this instance though, accusing the President of the United States of ordering the 9/11 attacks is akin to accusing Franklin D. Roosevelt of ordering the Pearl Harbor attacks in 1941.
Horseshit.
If it looks like horseshit, smells like horseshit, and attracts flies...it's probably horseshit.
I hate liberal radicals. Especially when they come in the form of ambulance-chasing lawyers with an obvious political agenda.
(0) comments
![[ Registered ]](http://www.diarist.net/registry/button3.gif){kind=small}
