|
Edited on Mon Jan-24-05 06:17 AM by fujiyama
Alright, often I see people simply recommending people read Mike Ruppert's book, "Crossing the Rubicon". I don't have the money to spend on the book but please tell me why I should believe him when he says that Cheney was the main one responsible.
I've heard only bits and pieces. Something about war games and NORAD.
I've also heard about Vreeland and the guy sounds very fishy and has a history of all sorts of credibility problems.
I more or less believe that four jets were hijacked. Two flew into the WTC, one into th e Pentagon, and another crashed (though possibly may have been shot down) in PA. The WTC fell because of the jet fuel burning.
As for who was responsible - I'm going to go with the Pakistani ISI, backed financially by the Saudis .The true benefactor has been Pakistan considering they have recieved a ton of military aid since 9/11. Since 9/11 the US has ignored nuclear proliferation concerns, sponsering of terrorism in Kashmir, and military links (likely nuclear) with NK and Iran. The evidence is very strong that various officials in the Pakistani military/intelligence outfit wired money to the hijackers as well. Osama bin Laden more or less had a supporting role and while he probably knew what was up, he's not as central as the government has made him out to be. That said, he's clearly an international terrorist and more or less "blessed" any attacks against the US.
The real question is, how close was the CIA relationship in the months preceding 9/11? There is the problem. The CIA was very close to the ISI for many years, as have been the two countries militarily. I'm not sure if the relationship had cooled in the months before 9/11, but I think the CIA knew something was up. I haven't read Graham's book, but he did say that two states had a major part in the attack. It's obviously the Saudis and Pakistanis.
I ultimately think MIHOP is bunk. Al Quaeda exists as does militant Islamic terrorism. It's delusional to believe otherwise. I would put nothing past this administration and they leave little reason to trust them on just about any issue. They have also haven't been forthcoming in the least, stonewalling any attempts to clarify the failure to protect the American people that day.
That itself was reason to impeach them (and possibly imprison several officials), or at the least reject a second term, but Americans bought the "war time president" bullshit. I like Clark's comment, "I'm not attacking Bush because he's fighting terrorism, but because he ISN'T".
|