Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: "Let's Roll"

Expand Messages
  • Julia Thompson
    ... It s not tornados that don t exist -- freight trains are just carefully harnessed tornadoes, is what it is. :) (Yes, that s silly. But that s what
    Message 1 of 40 , Jan 3, 2006
      Horn, John wrote:
      >>[mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dave Land
      >>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"
      > I have not had a chance to look at this video yet but I have looked
      > a several websites that claim the same thing. They all seem to
      > hinge on the same thing: comments made under stress at the time of
      > the attacks. Things like firefighters saying "it sounded like a
      > bomb going off" or something like that. I have two major problems
      > with this line of reasoning. One is that eyewitness accounts
      > especially under times of extreme stress are notoriously unreliable.
      > Also, people are always making comparisons like the above. How many
      > times have you heard someone say a tornado "sounded like a freight
      > train". Does that mean that tornados don't exist and it really
      > *was* a freight train that destroyed their house...? Or someone
      > saying that the aftermath of a hurricane looked like a war zone.
      > Does that mean that it really wasn't a hurricane but a super-secret
      > battle that happened during that rain storm?

      It's not tornados that don't exist -- freight trains are just carefully
      harnessed tornadoes, is what it is. :)

      (Yes, that's silly. But that's what occurred to me when I read that.)

      > So, some firefighters said over the radio that something sounded
      > like a bomb. So what? That's probably what it did sound like.
      > That doesn't make it a bomb.

      And then there's the question, is it a firecracker or a gun? If you
      hear enough of both, you learn to tell the difference in sound. Or so
      I've been told by someone who lived on a really bad street in DC for a year.

      A bomb is just a particular sort of explosion. If something explodes,
      there's a decent chance it'll sound like a bomb.

    • Doug Pensinger
      ... The article seems to be based on statements made by Secretary Powell who, in retrospect, had about as much influence on the Bush White House as Dan Rather.
      Message 40 of 40 , Jan 6, 2006
        Dan wrote:

        > No, I made it based on his actions and statements concerning the Balkans
        > immediately after he was elected. A summation of the administrations
        > attitude is at
        > http://www.worldpress.org/0901cover3.htm
        > 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.

        The article seems to be based on statements made by Secretary Powell who,
        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 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
        > invasion
        > of North Korea.

        Know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, Dan. Private statements as
        reveiled by administration insiders are much more compelling than public

        >> Third, immediately after 911 you not only have Bush telling Clarke to
        > find an Iraq connection you have Rumsfeld asking aids to come up with
        > plans
        >> 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.

        Because it follow that if the projectionn of power into the middle east
        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 from
        > power. They thought that this would provide an opportunity to defuse the
        > Korean
        > 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.

        So if there had been an incident and Clinton had invaded and then it
        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
        he invaded???

        >> And finally you have the build up to invasion during which intelligence
        >> was manipulated in a manner that promoted the justification for
        >> invasion.
        > Which does not address what was planned before 9-11.

        No, but it is a further indicator of the administrations anxiousness to
        invade Iraq.

        > There were four points that you considered suggesting that the invasion
        > 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.

        Why is it you think that Powell is a good indicator of what the
        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.
        > 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?

        I assume you mean Richard Clarke? This is from a meeting in April of 2001:

        "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
        United States.'

        "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
        and sealed.”

        > Indeed, if Bush were planning, before 9-11, wouldn't the first step be to
        > 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.

        Because they percieved (accurately) that there was no popular support for
        such a plan. Maybe they were hoping that a terrorist attack would take
        place that they could blame on Iraq?

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.