September 11th and the neo-con conspiracy

September 11th and the neo-con conspiracy

Until the year 2000, I was merely a musician with just a little
knowledge about politics. After it became obvious to me that Bush was
going to attack Iraq, regardless of what Saddam did, I became very
suspicious of the Bush administration. Since Bush was very popular
when I first became suspicious, it made it all the more apparent that
I needed to do research in order to substantiate my views.

The first thing that I found odd about Bush was that his running mate,
Dick Cheney was rewarded the Vice Presidency by failing to find Bush a
running mate. This is not much different than hiring an executive
search firm to find you a CEO, and then making the CEO of the
executive search firm the CEO of your company after that CEO's search
firm fails to find you a CEO. So I researched Dick Cheney, and found
out that he was the head of a corporation, Halliburton, that is
obviously benefitting from the attack on Iraq. It certainly seems
like a conflict of interest to reward your former company with
lucrative no-bid contracts involved in rebuilding Iraq. And it's even
more suspicious that Halliburton was being investigated when I did the
research. They were obviously hiding something, and it makes me
wonder if what they are hiding is that they have been paying Dick
Cheney under the table all this time.

When "Fahrenheit 9/11" came out, I certainly made a point to see it.
The thing that caught my interest the most was that 28 pages of the
9/11 report were censored. Finding it hard to believe, I did some
research through Google, and sure enough, Moore had done his homework.
I started to wonder why I hadn't learned all of this stuff when it
was first happening, and it made me believe that the mainstream media
wasn't the "liberal media," but the corporate media.

I became interested in getting videos that I felt were not freely
available in the United States, so I began using Limewire to search
for videos, figuring that the rest of the world had access to news
that we didn't have access to. I came across a video called "In Plane
Site," which suggests that Arabs with box cutters is a conspiracy
theory put forward by the United States government. It was quite
disturbing to say the least, because I had completely bought into the
idea that Osama Bin Laden committed 9/11.

I thought, well, if those were military planes and not commercial
planes that hit the towers and the Pentagon, what happened to all
those flights? I searched Google and it came up with "Flight of the
Bumble Planes," and "Operation Pearl." Not being a military expert,
those theories seem plausible. And I still keep discovering books,
videos, and websites which poke holes in the Arabs with box cutters
theory. So far the most comprehensive video I've seen is "Painful
Deceptions." I also watched a video by Mike Rupport, which has a lot
of interesting stuff. Note that I don't automatically believe any of
these, but the lack of inflammatory language, the presentation of
evidence, logical reasoning, and the lack of character assassination,
make these sources of information much more credible than just about
everything that conservatives put out.

Let me mention something about snopes.com while I'm at it. Many
conservatives and others seem to think that this website is the gospel
when settling so-called "urban legends" or "conspiracy theories."
It's called "deception," which may be the oldest trick in the book.
All you have to do is provide some kind of popular explanation for
some event, and presto, the conspiracy theorist becomes a fool.

Here's an attempt from snopes.com to explain that a Boeing really did
hit the Pentagon. "...and any pieces of wreckage large enough to be
identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred
feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash..."
Burned up in an intense fire? Just like that? A full tank of fuel
causes crashed Boeings to do what they normally don't do? It is true
that aluminum will burn or ignite at high enough temperatures, but we
are being asked to believe that everything that wasn't scattered on
the lawn, burned to the point of being unrecognizable, which in the
laws of physics, is impossible. And when you consider what happened
the twin towers and building 7, that's an incredible amount of steel
to account for. I'll have to admit, snopes.com is a pretty neat
trick. Call something an "urban legend," use the word "false," offer
a popular or alternate explanation, no matter how credible it is, and
just like that, you've discredited a conspiracy nut.

So if the United States military was involved in 9/11, how did such
pathological people get into power? I really can't say for sure, but
I did notice that there is a very tight knit group, going all the way
back to Nixon, known as "neo-conservatives," or "neo-cons." They
include Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. They have been a part of
every Republican administration since Nixon, and they embrace the
Reagan idea of a strong military. They also seem to be involved in
covert activities such as the Iran Contra scandal, and other
operations involving the CIA. Remember that Bush senior was once head
of the CIA, and that it was through the CIA that the United States was
helping Bin Laden fight the Soviets.

During Bush senior's administration, the neo-cons were disappointed
that the United States didn't remove Saddam, even though Saddam was
once an ally of the United States. After losing the election to
Clinton in 1992, the neo-cons, now out of office, formed a right wing
think tank called "Project for a New American Century" in 1997. Very
interestingly, the original members of PNAC were key players in the
2000 election, and in Bush's cabinet. The recent nomination of John
Bolton, a member of PNAC, nearly confirms that the neo-cons are using
the 2004 election results to seize control of the United States
government, and possibly, the world. Some of the original founders
include Dick Cheney, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Donald
Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Dan Quayle, and Steve Forbes. William
Kristol is the current chairman of PNAC, and a frequent Fox News
correspondent. By the way, Paul Wolfowitz, possibly the brains behind
PNAC, was recently made president of the World Bank.

Below is a direct quote from the PNAC September 2000 document,
"REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES:"

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event � like a new Pearl Harbor."

Well, if I didn't know better, I would say that this seems like a wish
for something like 9/11 to happen, in order to make the work of these
neo-cons easier. And judging from what has happened since 9/11, it
has become easier. Not long after 9/11, the still devastated and
vulnerable American public for all practical purposes, fully supported
the attack on Iraq, going merely on what Bush and Powell told them,
rather than the lack of evidence to support such an invasion.

But why would a catastrophic event be necessary in order to support
something that doesn't make sense to begin with, unless it is the
mindset of these neo-cons to prey upon vulnerable American victims?
Without a doubt, this is a despicable thing to do, when it involves
the rationalization for unjustified war, along with the unjustified
killing of innocent people that goes along with it.

You see, the reasoning of PNAC is that of a pathological killer. If
there is a chance that your enemy has weapons, or a chance that your
enemy might try to kill you, you kill the enemy. Let's not kid
ourselves. That's murder, no matter how much you sugar coat your
rational. A civilized person doesn't kill someone, unless it is
self-defense, and it is the only option available. "Preemptive" is
nothing but a sugar-coated right wing word for unjustified war. As we
all go about our daily lives there's a chance that we might get killed
by someone who doesn't like us, but that doesn't mean that we wake up
one day and then kill everyone that doesn't like us, using the
reasoning that they might kill us first if we don't. This is very
disgusting, primitive, and outdated reasoning, that can only work on
traumatized Americans. So to paraphrase the quote from PNAC, "Getting
people to buy into our BS will be difficult, unless we have an event
so catastrophic that induces mass insanity." And I would like to
include ignorance as a form of insanity.

To sum it up, this is what I believe. First, I believe that the
government needs to reopen the investigation of 9/11, using an
international council to insure that no conflicts of interest are
present. I believe that if the government was behind 9/11, the
neo-cons were behind 9/11.

I believe that PNAC gives the pretense of doing what's good for
America. But judging by the pathological behavior of the neo-cons who
pass themselves off as public servants, I don't believe that these
neo-cons give a damn about anyone but themselves and the corporations
who give them money. And if these neo-cons believe that they can get
away with pulling a 9/11, I don't see what would stop them from doing
so, since there is absolutely no sense of morality, compassion, or
civic duty, displayed by any of these neo-cons. I believe that it's
up to the public to remove them from power. I really hope this can be
done peacefully, but as it's been proven from history, sometimes you
have to fight for your freedom.

Daniel
============

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Air_America_Radio/

=====================

Did Condi Have Foreknowlede Of 911 And Warn SF's Brown?
MORE:>>