Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Was Bush behind 9/11?

I've been meaning to post this editorial for a few days now. It just knocked my socks off. This is the first time I've ever seen a major metro newspaper print a op-ed saying indications add up to a government conspiracy on 9/11. A few choice quotes:
The symmetry between the 9/11 attacks and U.S. policy goals is but the backdrop to the case for government complicity. The picture becomes clearer through considering the following:

Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, the head of the Pakistani intelligence service, was in Washington when the attacks occurred, conferring with government officials. The Indian press subsequently implicated him in wiring $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker. When the story broke, he was pressured into retirement at U.S. insistence. His link to the attacks was never pursued.

Two FBI agents approached attorney David Schippers with specific foreknowledge about the attacks. His repeated calls to Attorney General John Ashcroft were never returned. An article in New American on March 11, 2002, corroborated the agents' story. They claimed that knowledge of the plot was widespread within the FBI for months before 9/11.

The air defense system breakdown on the day of Sept. 11 was unprecedented. Well-practiced protocols for dealing with suspected hijackings failed to function for an astonishing 90 minutes.
That last is the most inexplicable aspect of the whole event to me. It's not like planes have never been hijacked before. Who could forget DB Cooper who spawned a whole wave of hijackings in the 70s? They've had these protocols since then. How could they have failed so completely in three separate places and with four planes? I'm no mathematician but I have to think the odds on that happening coincidentally must be astronomical.
Bookmark and Share

4 Comments:

Anonymous Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker said...

The Seattle PI's piece left me with one unanswered question...

...is it too late to invest heavily in tinfoil hat futures for the Puget Sound area?

My response to the 9/11 conspiracy-theorists is simply this: you can't have it both ways. George Bush can't be the dumbest biped to ever draw breath AND be the same person responsible for the most audacious daylight heist of all time.

10:31:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

I don't subscribe one way or the other Rex. I think there's a lot of unanswered questions but in any event, if the PNACers were behind it, they certainly didn't tell the Boy Wonder before hand. That doesn't mean Cheney didn't do it.

10:39:00 PM  
Blogger thehim said...

There's a big difference between Bush and Company being behind 9/11 and simply being aware that something might happen but being disinterested in stopping it.

The latter is the likelier scenario, mainly because it fits with the known mindset of both Bush and Cheney. In their mind, you don't stop terrorism by playing smart defense (through law enforcement), you stop terrorism by invading the Middle East. Their attitude was likely, let them hit us, it'll be the last time they do it.

11:30:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

I've read a lot of theories on this. No theory is perfect thehim, but neither are any of the explanations. Yours is the likelier explanation of course. I often think they deliberately try to entice an attack, more so than plan some nefarious blackops but it's still not impossible that they did just that. It certainly was convenient timing is all I know for sure. And the protocol failure has always troubled me.

I posted the oped though, because it blew me away that a "respectable paper" would print it.

11:59:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home