Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (20747)	4/10/2003 7:31:33 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93284

<<<It's hard to get past the improbability, but many of the facts are disturbing.>>> Yeah, that was my reaction also. The real scary part is the investigations into 9/11 should have been a done deal a year ago with all the hard evidence accounted for. Instead what we get is a massive cover up that won't stand up to even mild scrutiny. If we're the innocent victims, then National Security is not an issue. We would conduct our investigations in the open and state our case to the world without having anything to hide. Secrecy begets tyranny. The weird part is I recall running across that particular "conspiracy theory" awhile back and rejected it out of hand after a few sentences because it sounded absurd. It's almost like it was intentionally written up in a way likely to be discounted. The problem is a big chunk of what's contained in the article is stuff I've repeatedly run across from doing research on individual items, and the basic facts are well documented. I think there are some key pieces the author left out, such as the Baker Report, and I think there is a lot of trivia and slanted opinion that could have easily been eliminated, but the basic foundation appears sound. The evidence I've been able to turn up completely eliminates the possibility certain elements of our government were not involved. Policy discussions and misdirection of investigations before the fact, evidence of foreknowledge during the fact, and a complete break down of investigations and a resulting cover up after the fact. I think a reconstruction of what happened, based on available evidence, would go something like this: 1. Bush was sympathetic to the idea due to his personal prejudices against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and the absurd amounts of money likely to result for his major campaign contributors and family interests. 2. Since the Pentagon and World Trade Center were both built to withstand massive force, he was likely convinced casualties would be relatively minimal. A small price to pay to have his dreams handed to him on a silver platter. 3. The Mossad looked like the perfect tool. It distanced US assets from the operation, gave it a Middle Eastern flavor, and probably looked somewhat controllable due to the close ties the current administration has to Israel. 4. Israel was then in a position to up the ante. They had complete control of the operation, had complete cover from all the right places, and had a US President in their pocket; signed, sealed and delivered. Bush's guilty knowledge put him under absolute control of Israeli policy makers and turned America into an Israeli mercenary force. It's a pretty terrible thing to comprehend, but the sum of the evidence doesn't give any other answer.