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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: glenn_a who wrote (20577)	10/24/2004 2:25:22 PM
From: SOROS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Read this -- comments? I remain, SOROS davesweb.cnchost.com

To: glenn_a who wrote (20577)	10/24/2004 2:40:21 PM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110194

and it is partly from this constituency that Mike Rupert, 9-11 families, and 9-11 researchers seek to extract their exculpatory evidence. I'm only into the third chapter, but there is one example Ruppert used which makes me a little more skeptical of US gov't involvement. Bush at some point said that he or the gov't had never envisioned attacks using airplanes on such a massive scale, then Ruppert counters with examples of exercises the US gov't agencies had with respect to airplane attacks. Ruppert alleges that Bush's statement was a lie because he denied contemplating massive attacks when it's clear they thought about plain old attacks. I think that's a stretch. While I've only barely started the book, my initial thought is that the gov't had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq with the intention of establishing a presence in the middle east, and this was the perfect excuse. I'm still open to being convinced otherwise, but Ruppert's assertion about Bush lying in the statement mentioned above makes me look at it with an even more jaundiced eye.