Bush claims nations that "harbor terrorists ... will be held to account" -- but will media remember Goss's statement about bin Laden?
As part of a public relations offensive that has received extensive media coverage, President Bush declared in an August 31 speech in Salt Lake City that "[w]e have made it clear to all nations that if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists, you are an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account."
Bush's statement echoes claims he has repeatedly made in the years since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. On November 21, 2001, for example, Bush declared:
BUSH: We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.
But Bush's rhetoric seems inconsistent with the 2005 statements of his then-CIA director Porter Goss, who said that the Bush administration has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is, but that it was difficult to capture him because of "sanctuaries in sovereign nations." On June 22, 2005, the Associated Press reported:
CIA Director Porter Goss says he has an "excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the al Qaeda chief will not be caught until weak links in the war on terrorism are strengthened.
In an interview with TIME magazine published Sunday, Goss said part of the difficulty in capturing bin Laden was "sanctuaries in sovereign nations."
The magazine asked Goss when bin Laden would be captured.
"That is a question that goes far deeper than you know," he said. "In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice.
"We are making very good progress on it. But when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play.
"We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways that are acceptable to the international community.
[...]
Goss did not say where he thinks bin Laden is, nor did he name the country or countries he was referring to when he spoke of sanctuaries.
But intelligence experts have long said they believed bin Laden was probably hiding in the rugged mountainous border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In light of the extensive media coverage given to Bush's new public relations offensive, Media Matters for America expects news organizations to note the apparent conflict between Bush's sweeping declaration that nations that harbor terrorists are "an enemy of the United States, and ... will be held to account" and Goss's statement that the United States is unable to capture bin Laden because sovereign nations provide him sanctuary.
Bush said, "Bush claims nations that "harbor terrorists ... will be held to account."
Has Bush added more countries to his "Shock and Awe, Terrify and Occupy" list? How long is that list? He's no cowboy. He never held a gun in battle. He shirked service and smirks. He bunkers his daughters in a life of privilege. And now, like a 7th grader, he adds to the list of people he hates, promising that one day, they'll suffer.
So much suffering has come out of this man.
Holly/Katie McKy
Saudi Arabia, where all the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 came from. Also Osama's home land.
But Bush won't hold them to account, since he and his family, and Go Cheney Yourself have too many business partners in that corrupt "government."
military exercises userd american made helicopters and weapons. where did all that stuff come from ???
Of course that would have been when the Shah was in power 27 yrs ago...
I would not worry too much. It's hard to get parts for 30yr old Helo's and personnel carriers.
was a brutal dictator, certainly no better than the Mullahs in control now.
Just pointing out that during his reign, he was an ally and that is where Iran came into possession of US military hardware. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
It came from us...
Of course that would have been when the Shah was in power 27 yrs ago...
I would not worry too much. It's hard to get parts for 30yr old Helo's and personnel carriers.
- hogprint / Thursday August 31, 2006 08:55:54 PM EST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, Reagan had a different policy. He gave the new stuff to Saddam and put Iran strictly on an arms for hostages diet.
"So much suffering has come out of this man."
If there never was a George W Bush, we'd be suffering just the same under some other puppet.
why did you have to go and be right about what you just wrote?
What I did is congruent to the mistake people make with Hitler, thinking, "If only there hadn't been a Hitler."
Hitler did what he did with a whole lot of help.
Bush has done what's done with a whole lot of help.
Bush brought in Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz..........and Rice. people who, if there is no war, have no reason for being.
To paraphrase Lyle Lovett, "You're right, he's not from Texas"
GWB is from Connecticut. He's a Connecticut Yankee and he's used the rube part of the dumb rube act for some time now. He can't help the dumb part because he is that.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets upset with his smirk. sometimes, when I see him doing it, I want to throw something at the TV. But unlike GWB, if I break something, I've got to fix or replace it myself.
Or himself and his Dad?
They are protecting terrorists, namely the ones that blew up a Cuban airliner.
You can't terrorize a Communist. They are godless robotswith nothing but evil on their minds. Boogied, boogied, boo. Straw men, rhetoric, and ghosts are all the Right has.
brother. Power is the point. Fear is the means.
Home of Timothy McVeigh, specifically Western NY.
Is of course Pakistan, the northwestern quadrant where Musharraf won't go because the dictator knows they'll be an uprising if he hands over bin Ladin to the USA. The War on Terror is just political rhetoric for the neocons to scare the public into voting for them. They don’t care about terrorism or terrorists. They care about sheltering and garnering power.
If they had captured or killed Osama 2 years ago what could they have used to win elections.
I never could figure out why when we initially invaded Afghanistan that Bush didn't lay down the law to Pakistan and demand that we be allowed to pursue Bin Laden into the autonomous mountain regions. Instead we agreed to allow the Pakistan intelligence service to guard the back door... the same intelligence through which we had been funneling money to the Taliban and who were symapthetic to Bin Laden. And they let Bin Laden get away? Duhhh...!
...and his name was William Jefferson Clinton.
Cons love to ignore that fact, but Clinton was the President who launched attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. He wasn't afraid of violating the rights of a sovereign nation if they were harboring terrorists, whereas Bush's administration said they could not violate Pakistan's sovereignty in order to get Bin Laden.
[link to www.cnn.com]
Clinton stated, "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," and actually backed it up with his actions.
Republicans at the time mostly opposed the attacks of course, and obstructed the War on Terror. They called it Clinton's "Wag the Dog" campaign.
[link to www.cnn.com]
In 1996 when Clinton asked for a Patriot Act lite to fight the war on terror, Republicans rejected the expanded powers. Orrin Hatch at the time said terrorism was a "phony issue".
It's really startling to see how conservatives have done a complete 180 on the Iraq War as well. When Clinton launched strikes on Iraq after UN Weapons Inspectors left the country (because Saddam didn't allow them access to weapon sites), they called it unconstitutional and wrote extensively about reasons for "opposing the War in Iraq".
[link to www.conservativeusa.org]
[link to www.conservativeusa.org]
Excellent job of putting that together.
it is absolutely disingenuous to suggest that liberals are "soft on terror" and that Republicans are so much better for homeland security.
I'd like to hear comments from the normal rightwing apologizers addressing your post specifically in a well thought out manner. I'd like them to explain to me exactly how 9/11 causing Republicans to suddenly "wake up" to the real threat of terrorism makes them any more effective than the Democrats who apparently already understood the threat of terrorism (and were lambasted for it by these same Republicans??)
I'm sorry I won't let you get away with saying we went to Iraq to fight terrorists because that's not why we went over there.. Terrorists may have MIGRATED there now, but that was a direct result of our actions. So that doesn't count in your credibility of strategy against terrorism. Surely you don't believe that ALL terrorists have gone over there so we can kill them all in Iraq.. what a silly argument.
To hear rw pundits like Ann Coulter and others in the Bush Administration claim that "Osama has become irrelevant" really just suggests to me they have lost all sight of the lessons we have learned from 9/11.
I honestly don't know if the Democrats would be any better at combatting terrorism, but I am so sick of hearing Republicans act like they have some higher vision when it is becoming more and more clear they do not.
Thanks to the tireless and well-thought-out efforts of Bush's Department of Illusion of Homeland Security, I can rest assured that the 767 on which I am traveling will not be brought down with nail clippers.
Or my mascara !!!!
And speaking of the intractably immobile Tommy, how come he ain’t here defending what he…defends?
We'll need those facts to fight crap like this--
[link to www.truthout.org]
Can you believe ABC is giving over airtime to those propagandists? Wait a minute, what am I saying, of course it's TOTALLY believable!
brian in FL was that Clinton was no better than Bush in the way he handled Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Clinton applied the same misbegotten logic that you can bomb them into submission.With respect to the 1998 Iraq bombing raids, known as Operation Desert Fox, the U.N. inspectors left on their own so to be safe from the aerial destruction. Upon their return, Iraq rightly refused to allow the AMERICAN inspectors entry into the country, as the pretext for the bombings was false. Clinton committed genocide in Iraq just like Bush.
except for the fact that Clinton actually targetted the terrorists who attacked us, not a country who had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.
But keep bringing up the same GOP talking points, and they'll keep getting shot down by the fatcs.
...that Clinton dealt with the Al Qaeda problem the same way as Bush.
Unlike Bush, Clinton did see it as a battle of hearts and minds. He did try to recruit more and more allies to our side. He did see it as a law enforcement issue, knowing that he'd have to convict people in a court of law, not just hold them indefinitely and hope international laws could be ignored.
Clinton only launched his attacks on Al Qaeda bases after a court of law proved direct links between Al Qaeda and the first WTC bombing.
As for Iraq, Clinton's policy worked there as well. His policy was containment, not invasion and occupation. Bush's plan is nation-building. Clinton's containment policy obviously worked because they were unable to reconstitute their WMD programs, and their military remained in a weakened state after the first Gulf War.
Brian in FL posted:
"Clinton only launched his attacks on Al Qaeda bases after a court of law proved direct links between Al Qaeda and the first WTC bombing." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Clinton gave the green light for the pinprick Tomahawk attacks after the US Embassies were bombed. The aspirin factory was taken out and an old training camp were ruined. There has been no evidence to link ANY bombing retaliation for the first WTC bombing. If you have it please share.
Clinton looked at the first WTC bombing through the prism of law enforcement. Ramsey Yusef (sp?) was convicted and the blind sheik was deported or went to jail. Nice work but it did nothing to stop the other attacks from being carried out.
Ah, the re-writing of the Clinton legacy never fails to amaze me!
Lobbing two cruise missiles into an aspirin factory and killing the janitor doesn't count as a blow against terrorism. This myth has long been put to bed, but in case you missed it, here it is...BTW there is PLENTY of evidence from British and Israeli intelligence that back up no chemical weapons present in Sudan. ______________________________________________
BBC-1998
The bomb blasts occurred on the afternoon of August 7. By August 12 the plan for retaliation had been drawn up. It was approved by Clinton on August 14. Previous experience shows that it takes weeks and months to uncover and analyze forensic evidence from such blasts. In this case investigators were only beginning to sift through the rubble and question witnesses when the attack plans were made. No analysis of material from the site could have been carried out. None of it had even been shipped back to the US for further study.
Claim #2: The cruise missile attack was required to prevent another impending terrorist attack like those of August 7. The claim that the US struck Afghanistan and Sudan to safeguard Americans from imminent terrorist attack is flatly contradicted by the spate of warnings from the State Department that Thursday's strike placed US facilities and citizens around the world in danger of retaliatory action. It is impossible to explain, moreover, how an imminent attack, presumably in its operational stages at the time the cruise missiles were fired, could be prevented by bombing a pharmaceutical plant and a desert camp located hundreds of miles from any potential terrorist target. There are, after all, no American citizens or functioning embassies in Afghanistan or Sudan. Furthermore, now that the danger has been neutralized, why haven't its plan, scope and target been made public? Precisely who or what was in jeopardy? The al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory produced more than fifty percent of all medicines used by the people of Sudan. According to Sudanese doctors and health officials, the factory's destruction could lead to severe drug shortages endangering the lives of thousands of Sudanese. Because the U.S. imposed severe economic sanctions on Sudan, the country is unable to get the hard currency it needs to buy sufficient medicine on the world market. Thus, Sudan built the huge pharmaceutical factory inside the country to provide medicine for its people. After the U.S. air strike, news reports from the site and interviews with plant officials, local doctors, and foreigners involved in the construction and operation of the facility confirmed that it produced antibiotics, pain relievers, drugs for treating malaria and tuberculosis, and veterinary medicines. This medicine factory also had a contract with the United Nations. Even the Clinton administration officials eventually acknowledged that the factory did produce pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Department of State has acknowledged that the United States had approved the sale of medicines produced by al-Shifa. The factory's American designer Henry Jobe, as well as Tom Carnaffin, the British engineer who helped build and equip the factory, and many other foreign experts with "intimate knowledge" of the factory deny that it produced anything but medicine...After the attack, Sudan invited journalists and foreign diplomats to come to the bombing site to see for themselves that there were no chemical weapons being produced there."
_______________________________________________
I think the Lewinsky hearings were held on Aug 17, 1998...the bombings were on the 20th...hmmmmmm, you do the math.
Byron York ---2001
Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair...Some of Clinton's allies, suspecting the same thing(wag the dog) (my empahsis), remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton's decision... Benjamin and others believed — mistakenly, as it turned out — that they could convince the skeptics the attacks were fully justified. "Not only were they not buying it, they were accusing the administration of essentially playing the most shallow and foolish kind of game to deflect attention from other issues... In particular, reporters and some members of Congress were not convinced by the administration's evidence that the al-Shifa plant was involved in chemical-weapons production. The attack came to be viewed, by consensus, as a screw-up. In a new article in The New York Review of Books, Benjamin suggests that that skepticism, particularly on the part of reporters, scared Clinton away from any more tough action against bin Laden. "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al-Qaeda threat," Benjamin writes..."
At Reagan's funeral, the media practically hung a halo on him. They babbled incessantly about the "Great Communicator" who told us it was "morning in America," rather than about what Reagan actually did. Since they were so juiced about Reagan, you'd think they would have had more to say about his accomplishments. But they didn't. The best they could do was talk about how he was single-handedly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, a claim which is - giving him the full benefit of the doubt - a huge exaggeration.
It's been over five and a half years since Clinton was in power, and the radical right is still intent on blaming him for everything. When the time comes, what sound bites will the so-called "liberal" media be pushing at his funeral? Will they endlessly talk about Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky? Or will it be a saner, less polarized time in America, where we can actually talk sensibly about his successes and failures?
I'd really like it to be the latter, but I don't hold out much hope.
ok. the missile attacks were in august 98. the clinton impeachment vote was in december 98, and the senate trial was in feb. 99. the idea that somehow those missile attacks, which were headlines for maybe a couple days at most, were going to deflect attention from an event that went on for many months is laughable. now if you need an example of deflecting attention, here's one. colleen rowley was the minneapolis fbi agent who complained that her superiors ignored her warnings in 2001 about zacharias moussaoui, who had info relating to the 9-11 hijackings on his computer. that knowledge might have stopped the plot. on the very day that she testified before the senate judiciary committee, bush announced the dept of homeland security, which he had previously opposed. rowley's testimony got almost no attention by the news media.
The Monica "blue dress" scandal broke on or around 17August. Clinton bombed the poor janitor on 20 Aug. Widely speculated in the media that the bombings were a diversion from his scandals. Mostly because he bombed on sketchy intel which later proved to be false.
On the eve of impeachment hearings , Operation Desert Fox was launched. Once again the timing could not have been better. Both bombing campaigns were launched amid critics inside his party and inside the Pentagon. You are correct on one point, the actual VOTE on impeachment was in Feb 99.
More: ______________________________________________
Strikes didn't finish job US set out to do By Fred Kaplan, Boston Globe, 12/21/98 -
One question has emerged in the aftermath of President Clinton's four-day bombing campaign against Iraq: What was that all about? If his aim was to put a dent in Saddam Hussein's ability to produce chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons, the dent was not a large one. If, as some of the air war's targets suggested, Clinton was trying to destabilize Hussein's regime, he did not hit its foundations hard enough. Speaking of the Pentagon's estimates of damage, John Pike, a specialist with the Federation of American Scientists, said Saturday night, "It doesn't look like they did anything on what they said they were going to do, and not enough on what they were actually doing." "I'm mystified why they stopped the campaign just as they had amassed sufficient force to complete the job," Pike added.
Thought Crimes and Presidential Tantrumsby Sheldon Richman, December 1998
In an era of "hate crime" legislation, which makes it an added offense to think certain bad things when committing a real crime, we have a new forbidden thought: that President Clinton launched a savage attack on Iraq to delay, if not scuttle, the impeachment effort in the House of Representatives. As with Mr. Clinton's bombing last August of highly dubious terrorist locations in Sudan and Afghanistan, when cruise missiles were unleashed on Baghdad, three words entered the minds of nearly everyone: wag the dog. This provided a golden opportunity for the president's defenders to wax indignant: How dare anyone suggest that President Clinton is so depraved as to put America's servicemen in harm's way purely for political advantage? Whatever credibility these defenders might have had went out the window when they immediately called on the House to postpone the impeachment debate until the Operation Desert Fox was completed. The fact is, the Iraqi operation reeked of politics. It is obvious on the face of it that President Clinton needed some way to slow down or stop the impeachment juggernaut. The chances of accomplishing that were slim, but given his desperate position, he had to do something . And so he did. We'll be living with the unfortunate consequences for many years to come.
...Clinton efforts in disarming Iraq, as Kaplan claims in the article you posted, were not effective, then why did Saddam not have even an ounce of WMD materials when Bush invaded them?
And I really don't understand the logic in saying Clinton bombed either Al Qaeda bases or Iraq to get his "scandals" out of the news. How was that going to happen? His impeachment trial was just going to disappear because he launched the attacks??? Ken Starr was just going to halt his investigations? Republican congressmen were going to just stop their witch-hunt? That's absurd.
If Clinton's goal in attacking Iraq was to destabilize Saddam's regime, why did he not have a policy of regime change in Iraq? Why didn't he specifically target Saddam and his sons, as Bush later did? The Clinton administration never said the goal of that attack was to remove Saddam, or even to destabilize his regime, it was to punish Saddam for not allowing full weapons inspections, per the terms of the truce Saddam signed to end the first Gulf War. Clinton's goal was to force inspections to continue.
If the Administration continues to hold everyone accountable for harboring terrorists, which now seems to be anyone that disagrees with the Admin, I am afraid that we may have sooo many terroists in this country that Wyoming will have to become a Prison State. This new PR campaign is going to be the biggest joke to hit this country since "We know where the WMD's are but we just can't find them". I feel that putting the President on the point, which he never walked, is a bad mistake that Rove is making. He expects the backlash to come as "Everybody just hates Bush" that old standby. But Karl, that card was played so much that the corner is bent and a new deck is needed. It is not George, it's the DYING. Reinventing yourself into a tough from being a tough guy is just plain stupid. Let the games begin
1. All of this is irrelevant until we get to the bottom of who photoshopped Katie Couric's bottom.
2. Look for the Republicans to get nasty this fall. I anticipate plenty of democrats = terrorists nonsense, perhaps even using direct comparisons.
Usually it's done implicitly, but the Repubs can smell their power hold slipping.
There's nothing meaner than a Republican who's losing.
the bush administration harbors people who were discussing the classified identity of a cia operative with reporters. no accounability there, in spite of the pledge to fire anyone "involved". trust us they say, we'll keep you safe.
Goss's statement goes along with the administration official who told that a deal to turn Bin laden over to the US before 9/11 after a period of house arrest was rejected by Bush's ally Pervis Musharref because the deal risked "...Casting our objectives too narrowly” and would lead to “a premature collapse of the international effort [to overthrow the Taliban] if by some lucky chance Mr. bin Laden was captured.” Goss's statement works with the FBI's position of not listing Bin Laden as responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It's also consistent with the fact that Bin Laden was visited by a CIA official in July 2001 in Saudi Arabia when he was hospitalized for kidney treatment. Goss's statments and Bush's statements show another great contradiction in the administration approach; that Iraq's "sovereignity" was not an issue when we wanted to invade a country that hadn't attacked us but other nations' sovereignity is an issue when it comes to tracking down the man who, apparently masterminded a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 Americans.
[link to www.rawstory.com]
Now that Bush has declared war on countries harboring terrorists, we will wait with bated breath as to how he deals with the US harboring Posada Carilles, the Cuban exile who was responsible for the bombing a Cubana Airlines killing 75; or how will he deal with Orlando Bosch, John Negroponte and Roger Noriega who were so instrumental in much of the mayhem in Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, et al. Or is the US such a hypocracy that it will not follow its own preachings. This has become a country without honesty, credibility, compassion and decency in this era. Are the citizens of this country prepared to be labelled as such?
I think the Lewinsky hearings were held on Aug 17, 1998...the bombings were on the 20th...hmmmmmm, you do the math. - hogprint
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And bush was installed on the throne on 1/20/01 and the Towers fell on 9/11/01. Do the math.
You're holding Bush resposible for 9/11 when it's entirely clear that Bush is an idiot who simply can't be held responsible for anything. Good thing for Bush we don't have a law requiring residents to learn English.
Sure he apparently reads, but does he really understand any of it? [link to www.cnn.com] For all we know, the last book he understood was "My Pet Goat." Maybe that explains why he remained so engrossed in it while the nation was under attack.
The fact is, the Iraqi operation reeked of politics. It is obvious on the face of it that President Clinton needed some way to slow down or stop the impeachment juggernaut. The chances of accomplishing that were slim, but given his desperate position, he had to do something . And so he did. We'll be living with the unfortunate consequences for many years to come.
- hogprint / Friday September 1, 2006 11:07:51 AM EST - Reply to this comment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not nearly as slim as the chance of his conviction. The current state of the Middle East, Iraq, the Manhattan Skyline and Osama's living arrangements is an exclusively republican production.
I give you the:
Bombing in Riyadh '95- Five US servicemen dead and a number of US contractors.
Truck bomb in Khobar Towers '96--19 USAF personnel dead
US Embassies bombed in Kenya and Tanzania - over 500 dead
USS Cole - 2000 - 17 Sailors killed
Sorry but you can't blame those attacks on Republicans. Every attack became bigger and more sophisticated and the former administration did nothing. I'll let you guess who that was.
No He Isn't a Cowby
To paraphrase Lyle Lovett, "You're right, he's not from Texas"
GWB is from Connecticut. He's a Connecticut Yankee and he's used the rube part of the dumb rube act for some time now. He can't help the dumb part because he is that.
- worrierking / Thursday August 31, 2006 07:22:44 PM EST - Reply to this comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever notice how he's the only one in the family with the counterfeit drawl?
He's a prep school punk who couldn't land a gig on the maintenance crew if he weren't a legacy. His Academic Record is as fraudulent as his accent.
He can turn that accent on and off too, depending on the audience. I can't understand how most people don't see through his act.
up the scholatic achievemnts of our President, every Yale graduate must feel proud to have the same education. Makes me wonder about that Ivy Leagfue school.
In the documentary "Bush's Brain", they talked about how Mr. Rove would only drill George Bush on three(3) subjects. Recently during his speeches, he speaks of Iraq, terrorists and every now and then throws in something about education...If I can count, even though I never graduated from Yale, that seems to be three(3). If anyone can find 4, then, never mind.
Two words:
Emmanuel Goldstein.
...we can yak all day about who bombed what and when and why and none of that matters at all to me right now. What does concern me is that one of the principals of Securecom, the company that handled security at the World Trade Center up to 9/11, was a guy named Marvin Bush. You may have heard of him. Another thing that keeps me up at night is wondering whether they'll rebuild those towers. They talked about it for awhile, but now the idea seems to have been scrapped, just like the towers themselves, shipped off to China (you know, those Communist, godless heathens?) to be melted down immediately, without any investigation. I hope they do, and I have a suggestion for the designers: Build the new towers out of U.S. Passports. No, really. After all, we did find Mohammed Atta's passport intact in the smoking pile that was the WTC. Jesus, if they can survive 2000 degrees for 6 weeks I think they can stop an airplane, don't you? Too, I think about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That one worries me alot. It's the one that says that Entropy (disorder) tends to increase with Time. See, the reason I think about it so much is that I'm pretty sure it was violated when those towers fell, and that doesn't seem right does it? Guess how many hi-rises have fallen in the known history of the world because of fire.....? Three. WTC 1, 2 and 7. And they certainly didn't fall with anything even approaching the term Entropy. Nope, they fell straight to the ground, almost as if...as if....it was planned that way. The last thing that keeps me up at night is wondering how "19 Saudi terrorists" managed to gain access to Marvin Bush's buildings and plant the explosive demolitions that brought them down. That had to be a tough gig, creeping in after dark, praying to Allah that Securecom's rent-a-cops didn't catch 'em in the act......... Yeah, I really don't give a squat about what Bill did or didn't do before hand. Except I'll say that I remember working at Martin Airbase in 1998, and seeing a Wanted poster on the wall, with a 1,000,000$ reward for a guy named Goldst....ooops, Bin Laden.
Right off of Whatreallyhappened.com:
"The US told other nations as early as March 2001 of a plan to invade Afghanistan in October 2001. Isn't it interesting that the "terrorists" struck on 9-11, perfectly in time to create the public anger Bush needed to carry out the already-planned already-announced war?
Who is running Al Qaeda? Who benefits from their activities? Bush got his oil war, and Sharon gets a green light to kill Palestinians and steal their land.
Who really benefits? That's who is running Al Qaeda."
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Great in-depth work Yossarian! Please, keep it coming!