I know that other 9/11 analyses have been posted to this list, but I
came across a one-hour documentary that concludes that "it is more
likely than not that the government was actually behind the attacks"
on Google Video tonight, and I hope that one or more of you has a
chance to see it:
With this documentary, and other documents I've seen here and
elsewhere, I'm increasingly convinced that, while it is true that a
small group of men brought about the events that "changed the world
forever" on the day after my birthday four and a quarter years ago,
they did not have last names like bin Laden and Atta and Al Suqami,
but Bush and Cheney and Rove.
The words of Flight 93 Hero Todd Beamer are used to chilling effect
at the end of the documentary, as the narrator calls viewers to join
with Beamer in voting to stop those who have highjacked our country,
whatever the cost -- "Let's Roll" to stop those who would destroy
this nation in order to own it.
I can't help but think that I'm turning into a relative in my family
who has always been a JFK-assassination conspiracy freak as I become
more and more interested in uncovering the truth of 9/11.
But I'm not really that concerned about being that freaky relative:
If a group of men with last names like Bush and Cheney and Rove in
fact murdered 3000 of my fellow Americans to further their political
aims, then I owe my son and his generation nothing less.
- Dan wrote:
> No, I made it based on his actions and statements concerning the BalkansThe article seems to be based on statements made by Secretary Powell who,
> immediately after he was elected. A summation of the administrations
> attitude is at
> Bush wasn't interested in nation building....both his statements and his
> actions indicated that he thought it was a do-gooder waster of
> effort.....before 9-11.
in retrospect, had about as much influence on the Bush White House as Dan
Rather. Were there any statements by Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney?
>> Second, if you dig deeper into the Clarke statements as well asKnow when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, Dan. Private statements as
>> allegations made by Paul O'Niel, you _will_ find a greater interest in
>> Iraq than in Al Quaeda/Bin Laden prior to 911.
> OK, let me accept that he was more interested in Iraq than AQ. The
> number of public statements he made on the dangers of appeasing North
> Korea were
> significantly greater than the number of public statements made about
> Iraq. Yet, I saw no indication that he was preparing the nation for an
> of North Korea.
reveiled by administration insiders are much more compelling than public
>> Third, immediately after 911 you not only have Bush telling Clarke toBecause it follow that if the projectionn of power into the middle east
> find an Iraq connection you have Rumsfeld asking aids to come up with
>> to strike Iraq _despite_ being told that the terrorists were probably Al
>> Qaeda and not Iraqi.
> How is this inconsistent with him _knowing_ that there must have been a
> connection? Why is this evidence that he planned on invading Iraq before
> 9-11. Why couldn't it just be the perspective that it takes the
> resources of a country to mount such an attack....and knowing that
> Hussein has
> supported other terrorists with cash, him believing that it must have
> happened again.
and regime change in Iraq were administration priorities (as illustrated
in points 1, 2 and 4), then the administration would be anxious to find an
excuse to invade Iraq.
> Well, it was a goal of the Clinton administration to remove Kim fromSo if there had been an incident and Clinton had invaded and then it
> power. They thought that this would provide an opportunity to defuse the
> crisis. This was after Clinton decided not to bomb the nuclear
> facilities. But, he had no plans to invade.
> I know that Bush I had the removal of Hussein as a goal of his policy.
> Clinton certainly rattled the saber more in 1998 than Bush did pre-9-11.
turned out that the incident had absolutely nothing to do with N. Korea
then Clintons proclivity to unseat Kim would have nothing to do with why
>> And finally you have the build up to invasion during which intelligenceNo, but it is a further indicator of the administrations anxiousness to
>> was manipulated in a manner that promoted the justification for
> Which does not address what was planned before 9-11.
> There were four points that you considered suggesting that the invasionWhy is it you think that Powell is a good indicator of what the
> of Iraq was a priority before 9-11. I didn't consider them thus. I'd be
> willing to try to formalize my I also considered negative evidence.
> For example, Powell stated that the sanctions were working with Iraq
> early in 2001 and that no military action was needed.
administration was thinking? Whatever he said had only coincidental
importance to what the ral Bush insiders were thinking.
> You quote Richards stating that Bush was more interested in Iraq than AQ.I assume you mean Richard Clarke? This is from a meeting in April of 2001:
> He also stated that Bush wasn't very interested in AQ....didn't consider
> them to be a serious threat. If the Bush administration had Iraq as a
> priority, wouldn't Richards, or Wilkerson, or someone have gotten wind of
> that pre 9-11?
"Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have
to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense,
said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking
about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the
"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the
United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the
CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There
is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."
Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was
supporting al Qaeda, ever."
And this is Paul O'Niell, the Secretary of the Treasury and a member of
the security council:
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was
a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going
after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months
before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can
do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid
> Indeed, if Bush were planning, before 9-11, wouldn't the first step be toBecause they percieved (accurately) that there was no popular support for
> rattle a saber in order to start the preparations for such a war? Why
> didn't we hear some of the speeches about the dangers of Hussein that we
> heard after 9-11 before 9-11 if that was his plan all along.
such a plan. Maybe they were hoping that a terrorist attack would take
place that they could blame on Iraq?