Join 3,516 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The Assassination of John Glenn
August 12, 2008 3:03 PM   Subscribe

"Operation Northwoods [pdf], which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war." [YouTube]

This and more, from the Top 10 Declassified Secrets page at The List Universe.

Also for your reading pleasure:
  • The electrification of Hitler, and the starvation of Ghandi.

  • Previously:
  • Bombing Iran

  • Destabilizing Cuba
  • posted by blue_beetle (54 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

     
    This is a dupe.
    posted by phrontist at 3:07 PM on August 12, 2008


    > This is a dupe.

    It's not nice to call blue_beetle a dupe. On the other hand, Operation Northwoods has been discussed argued here quite a lot and probably doesn't need yet another rehashing.
    posted by ardgedee at 3:12 PM on August 12, 2008


    Reichstag fire... Tonkin "incident"...
    posted by matteo at 3:35 PM on August 12, 2008


    Remember the Maine!
    posted by rodgerd at 4:01 PM on August 12, 2008


    September the 11th, 2001.
    posted by fleetmouse at 4:08 PM on August 12, 2008 [2 favorites]


    (to the tune of Amadeus, Amadeus)
    9/11, 9/11
    9/11, 9/11
    9/11, 9/11
    Whoahhhhhhhhh 9/11!

    9/11, 9/11
    posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 4:17 PM on August 12, 2008 [3 favorites]


    Little here comes a surprise to anyone who read the history of the CIA, in which it is made clear that this sort of madness began well before Bush

    http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038551445X
    posted by Postroad at 4:19 PM on August 12, 2008


    I'd have to agree with Postroad. Still, I think it's important to distinguish between ideas that were bandied about briefly and went nowhere, ideas that were seriously discussed but eventually abandoned, and ideas that were executed. Not to say that a roomful of powerful adults seriously considering such madness doesn't shock the senses - it certainly does, which is all the more reason to emphasize what sort of craziness didn't make it across the finish line, and what did (oh hi, Iran-Contra affair!).
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:32 PM on August 12, 2008



    Just so long as they didn't make up crap to justify invading Iraq. That would be too much for me to swallow.
    posted by notreally at 4:35 PM on August 12, 2008 [7 favorites]


    >>in which it is made clear that this sort of madness began well before Bush

    Too true. It's been a part of wielding political power since Egypt's propaganda about "winning" the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 b.c. Hell, probably way before then, but that's an early documented one.

    All this raises interesting questions about the nature of governments and what they do to achieve goals and maintain a hold on power. With so many lies, and damned destructive ones, that show there's very little real concern for the well-being of their constituents, it makes you wonder if there's ever been an non-corrupt government on this planet, ever. Or if there ever will be.
    posted by SaintCynr at 4:45 PM on August 12, 2008


    it makes you wonder if there's ever been an non-corrupt government on this planet, ever. Or if there ever will be.

    Switzerland, maybe?

    Honestly, that seems like the sort of question where the answer turns out to be some sort of awful dictator that everybody hated living under precisely because he was so uncompromising about honesty.
    posted by Ryvar at 4:49 PM on August 12, 2008


    The Swiss profited majorly from the Holocaust.
    posted by SaintCynr at 5:03 PM on August 12, 2008


    I hope that you all understand that if you make any connection between the US government's well documented false flag operations and the fact that a bunch of "cavemen" managed to fly planes into buildings in one of the most well defended countries in the world by a string of incredible co-incidences causing three steel framed skyscrapers to fall down for the first, second and third time in history without the aid of explosives, making a massive profit for the owner of the buildings and allowing the Government to start a war and bring in measures that have severely reduced your civil liberties and rights, it will sound to some like the ramblings of a madman.

    Also, did anyone notice that US backed forces just attacked Russia?
    posted by an egg at 5:12 PM on August 12, 2008 [9 favorites]


    Pitcairn's Island?
    posted by crapmatic at 5:12 PM on August 12, 2008


    ...the fact that a bunch of "cavemen" managed to fly planes into buildings...will sound to some like the ramblings of a madman.

    Sounds more to me like the ramblings of a racist.
    posted by Banky_Edwards at 5:21 PM on August 12, 2008 [4 favorites]


    the ramblings of a madman

    And the irony here is that we have clear, unambiguous evidence that the Bush administration conspired to get us into Iraq under false pretenses, conspired to tarnish anyone (Valerie Plame, etc) who got in their way, conspired to sell the anthrax attacks as if they were from al Qaeda, conspired to manufacture terror "alerts" to create a climate of fear for political reasons, and on and on ad infinitum. And yet we're supposed to believe the one and only thing that they're not lying about is the very thing that is the crux of their self-mythologizing narrative? We're supposed to believe that they just hit the PNAC lottery that one day. Yeah, right.
    posted by ornate insect at 5:26 PM on August 12, 2008 [6 favorites]


    ... a bunch of "cavemen" managed to fly planes into buildings in one of the most well defended countries blah blah blah ...

    Aaaand there it is. Right on schedule.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:27 PM on August 12, 2008 [6 favorites]


    The Swiss profited majorly from the Holocaust.
    posted by SaintCynr at 8:03 PM on August 12 [+] [!]


    Hmm. I guess then the question becomes how one defines corruption - Switzerland is the only significant direct democracy (or even pseudo-direct democracy) that I'm aware of. Presumably if the Swiss people felt bad about said opportunism, something would happen. There's a difference between being corrupt and being a bunch of complete assholes who benefit off of genocide.
    posted by Ryvar at 5:27 PM on August 12, 2008


    Aaaand there it is. Right on schedule.

    Aaaand there it is. The madman insinuation. Right on schedule.
    posted by ornate insect at 5:51 PM on August 12, 2008


    >>There's a difference between being corrupt and being a bunch of complete assholes who benefit off of genocide.

    I think they both spring from the same thing, which is essentially "hooray for us, screw you". Just depends on how big your pool of "us" is.
    posted by SaintCynr at 6:00 PM on August 12, 2008


    I feel like I've forgotten something....
    posted by Artichoke Dance Off!! at 6:01 PM on August 12, 2008


    The madman insinuation. Right on schedule.

    Pardon your false dichotomy. I don't think people who believe the Bush administration was behind the 9-11 attacks are insane. In the discussions I've had with people who believe this, I've come to the conclusion that it's an exercise in futility. Both sides can cite sources, for and against, regarding the physics of structural engineering, metal's weakening point, jet fuel's temperature and so on. But if you can't step back and ask yourself how arguably the most bunglingly incompetent gang of idiots in US history - the same idiots who couldn't keep wiretapping, Abu Ghraib or waterboarding a secret - were somehow able to coordinate millions of dollars, dozens of co-conspirators across dozens of agencies to pull off an operation of this magnitude and keep the entire thing under wraps for this long, especially when we barely needed a reason to invade Iraq the first time, then the discussion goes nowhere. Because whenever I've asked this perfectly legitimate question, the response has usually been one of accusation (that I'm some moderate neo-con apologist) or one of pity (that I just don't get "it" or can't accept the awful my truth that my wonderful country could do something so heinous). That sort of dodge, I think, conveniently pulls the debate back into things such as the finer points of aluminum's chemical integrity while dismissing the entire foundation of the question.

    I'm well aware of America's previous false flag operations and the terrible things America has done to advance its interests. But that the Bush administration pulled off effin' 9-11 just doesn't hold up to me. For some, it does. Great, get everyone else who believes it together and file some sort of legal action. Just don't expect me to waste my time splitting hairs over what-ifs.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:14 PM on August 12, 2008 [15 favorites]


    Also, did anyone notice that US backed forces just attacked Russia?

    The Georgians, apparently, are not students of history.
    posted by mecran01 at 6:36 PM on August 12, 2008


    but if you can't step back and ask yourself how arguably the most bunglingly incompetent gang of idiots in US history...

    Maybe they outsourced it?

    ...a secret...

    Maybe 9/11 has only been kept a "secret" because it's just too loaded a topic for anyone in politics or the mainstream press to touch: the very idea of even considering it (without jumping to conclusions either way) is just cognitive dissonance to the powers that be.

    that the Bush administration pulled off effin' 9-11 just doesn't hold up to me. For some, it does.

    For some, such as me, the question is premature. The real questions are: does the official story have holes? It does. Was the original investigation thorough? It was not. Did the administration have means, motive, and opportunity? They did. Could they have outsourced the details of the job? Indeed. Who is it most likely to have been outsourced to? The cognitive dissonance that answer provides is even worse, so I'll leave it open, but the answer is obvious.

    Believe it or not, it's still possible to be agnostic on 9/11: to still believe that we don't have enough information to know for sure what happened. It's precisely that uncertainty that is, in a way, the most troublesome of all. It's a complicated subject, but there's enough bothersome circumstantial and specific evidence to warrant, in a fair world, an immediate and thorough re-investigation.
    posted by ornate insect at 6:39 PM on August 12, 2008 [7 favorites]


    Maybe 9/11 has only been kept a "secret" because it's just too loaded a topic for anyone in politics or the mainstream press to touch: the very idea of even considering it (without jumping to conclusions either way) is just cognitive dissonance to the powers that be.

    Yeah, I'm not too sure about that. There are plenty of powerful people who'd love nothing more than to hit this administration, hard, and even put some of these guys in prison. I don't see how they would ignore any pertinent evidence that implicates the administration in a crime of this magnitude as being too sensitive a subject to address. Unless, of course, we were talking solely about the toothless Democratic Congress, which I'm not.

    It's a complicated subject, but there's enough bothersome circumstantial and specific evidence to warrant, in a fair world, an immediate and thorough re-investigation.

    And I'd be more than happy to see such an investigation happen. And if it came to light that there were indeed top government officials behind the attack, I just hope the result is better (if such a word could be used in this situation) than one middle-management peon taking the fall for the whole deal.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:55 PM on August 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


    incredible co-incidences causing three steel framed skyscrapers to fall down for the first, second and third time in history without the aid of explosives

    ...speaking as someone who's in structural engineering, there are few things more irritating than the 9/11 "truth" crew. God, quit listening to Art Bell and pay attention in class for once.

    Or don't. Feel free to keep worrying about the Gnomes of Zurich, and whether or not they've hired the Invisible Pink Unicorns to invade Las Vegas. I'm sure they've suborned all of the national engineering associations -- especially those haughty ASCE bastards. Everyone knows they're on the dark side.

    Ya never can trust engineers, you know. That much learnin' just ain't right. Oughta remain jumpy & superstitious instead, like God intended. If hiding from shadows is wrong, well, I just don't wanna be right.
    posted by aramaic at 6:55 PM on August 12, 2008 [5 favorites]


    I don't see how they would ignore any pertinent evidence that implicates the administration in a crime of this magnitude as being too sensitive a subject to address. Unless, of course, we were talking solely about the toothless Democratic Congress, which I'm not.

    Well who are you talking about?

    We have just been provided evidence by Ron Suskind that a fabricated letter linking Iraq and al Qaeda was proposed, and the sound you hear in response is...crickets.

    From refusing to testify to the US Attorney scandal, to pardoning Libby, to the NSA wiretaps, on and on and on and on, there has been a plethora of actionable items that have not resultd in anyone being held accountable. Forget about 9/11, no one is following up on the stuff we know about.
    posted by ornate insect at 7:04 PM on August 12, 2008


    Whatever. You're ALL wrong. 9/11 never even happened. Is it any surprise that after 9/11 we've seen a glut in 3-D IMAX movies?? Where do you think this technology came from? And noted Bush supporter James Cameron has allegedly been developing hologram technlogy since the late 90s.

    The real question orante insect and his supposed 9/11 Truther friends need to ask (nothing but a bunch of right wing false flagger secret neo-apologists for the Bush/Cheney/Barack/Krusty cartel if you ask me), the real real super duper question we need to ask is not if the guvmint did 9/11s but:

    DID 9/11 EVEN HAPPEN?

    Are the buildings still there, is this just a massive 8 year prank that will result in a climatic action sequence for the upcoming James Cameron movie Avatar?!

    it was all holograms people, look it up
    posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 7:04 PM on August 12, 2008 [1 favorite]


    it's so easy trivialize this stuff, that's part of the problem.
    posted by ornate insect at 7:09 PM on August 12, 2008


    Forget about 9/11, no one is following up on the stuff we know about.

    Here, I think, we learn more about government in general than this administration in particular. The executive branch has been a fairly flexible one, historically. Wiretapping, internment without trial, gun running, money laundering - par for the course. These are actions that more cynical politicians regard as unfortunate but at times necessary actions to achieve a greater good, and both parties have been guilty of them. So there's an engrained complacency about them in power circles. But 9-11 as a false flag op would uh, kick that whole concept up a notch or two. Wiretaps, sure, any cynical pol can dismiss that. And the people who hate this adminstration know very well that these are parking-ticket-level charges that won't go anywhere. But killing a few thousand of our own people, right here on our own territory? Major faux pas. You're not going on work release for that. Any pertinent and plausible evidence directly implicating a Bush administration official in 9-11 would be leapt upon with great ferocity, I'm sure. It'd be the golden ticket. And if enough of a public outcry pushes this Congress into launching another investigation, and such an investigation is fair and thorough, and it comes to the conclusion that yes, our own elected officials did this thing, then I'll be one of the first to call for their immediate life sentence. What I won't do is butt heads with the sort of smug brochure-armed pseudo-scientists who confront me at bus stops. That's all I meant, really. So thanks for being reasonable.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:20 PM on August 12, 2008


    m.s.t.p.t--See I see this the opposite way: you go for the low hanging fruit. Like Capone being busted for tax evasion. If a senator or congressperson or member of the dept of justice of fbi or whathaveyou suspects 9/11 may have possibly been some kind of false flag, they likely also realize that it's just too hot a topic to take head on: no one will even look at it unless the evidence is overwhelming (perhaps even if it is), and the investigation will go nowhere. Plus, you may be killed. Thus, I think the cumulative criminal acts of the Bush administration (putting 9/11 aside) are such that they are unprecedented--and should cause a response (i.e. impeachment, criminal investigation). So I actually think that even someone in power who may be sympathetic to the idea that 9/11 is not as it seems, would actually choose to go for the "lower hanging fruit."
    posted by ornate insect at 7:28 PM on August 12, 2008


    the same idiots who couldn't keep wiretapping, Abu Ghraib or waterboarding a secret

    Depends on what ones calls a 'secret'. The versions go from, well, alien spacecraft to everything in the published report is exactly what happened.

    Few people *I've* met are willing to stick to 100% the report is what happened. In fact, only people running for or in office have told me 'the report is the way it went down.'

    Plenty of people are on record as saying 'the government knew this was planned'.

    Thus - what is the 'secret' being kept here?


    speaking as someone who's in structural engineering,

    Say then - what about claims like this: Over the years, the process known as 'galvanic corrosion' had structurally degraded these buildings beyond repair. Supporting statements to this effect had been compiled by the engineers and delivered to the building owners during the time-frame that I have described. Subsequently, both Mayor Giuiliani's Office, and the New York Port Authority, had allegedly received an order for the buildings to be completely dismantled, by 2007."
    posted by rough ashlar at 7:30 PM on August 12, 2008


    See I see this the opposite way: you go for the low hanging fruit. Like Capone being busted for tax evasion.

    Right, but this is more like if Eliot Ness and his entire crew were guilty of tax evasion, bootlegging, prostitution and gambling, just as much as Capone. The only way Capone's going to Alcatraz is the Ness feds discover hard evidence linking Capone to killing every man, woman and child on a Chicago city block.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:38 PM on August 12, 2008


    But killing a few thousand of our own people, right here on our own territory? Major faux pas.

    Stalin seems have gotten away with killing a few thousand of his own people, so its not like it hasn't been done before.

    If one believes that the government has a big hand in getting in the drugs that are later involved in disputes settled with violence - then a 'few thousand' die every year with the taint of government involvement.

    (and on an on where 'the government' and its actions/lack of action kills)

    I'd say its less 'major faux pas' and more 'known (or knowable) risk'.
    posted by rough ashlar at 7:38 PM on August 12, 2008


    Stalin seems have gotten away with killing a few thousand of his own people, so its not like it hasn't been done before.

    Has he? Has he really? It's a little known, disputed, fringe idea that Stalin killed people? Where?
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:41 PM on August 12, 2008


    Hello - and damn if I don't feel like an idiot paying $5 to say this, but hey ho.

    This whole notion about how the government couldn't possibly have been competent to organize a conspiracy like this, or smart enough to keep it quiet. The argument continues to pop up every time something like this is discussed.

    If you wanted to do something like this, you're not in need of a vast number of people, some dark Bond villainesque army of evildoers, you're in need of one person with sufficient information and resources. Terrorist groups operate on a cell structure. People involved in a cell do not know anyone outside of their own cell. If you step into this with the knowledge of the correct protocols individual cells would have no way of knowing whether you were actually another terrorist or a counter-terror operative from one of the intelligence agencies - so long as what you're organizing seems roughly in line with the group's avowed intentions and the protocols line up, there's a good chance they'll go through with it. With the correct information and an ability to move and throw around enough money, one person could organise something like 9/11.

    Do I believe the US government was behind 9/11? No. But that's not the same as saying it's impossible for them to have been behind it. Perhaps more terrifying, in widening the scope, is that it could have been organized by any of several dozen interested parties. Even taking a more straightforward view: the organisation currently believed to have organized 9/11 is headed by a man whose family have business involvements with the Bush family and who was, at one time (Soviet occupation of Afghanistan), pretty much funded by the CIA.

    So, while the "they couldn't possibly arrange and keep secret..." arguments are very reassuring, they're also total nonsense.

    I really hope I find a way to use up the remaining $4.99...
    posted by mandal at 8:15 PM on August 12, 2008 [11 favorites]


    >>It's a little known, disputed, fringe idea that Stalin killed people?

    If he'd kept it under 20 million people, and not alienated even his successor, it probably wouldn't be as well known. Might even be "up for debate".

    The Armenian Genocide is being debated to this day. For most, it's taken for granted that it occurred. The Turks deny it, and no real action has ever been taken to do more than censure Turkey almost a century after it occurred.

    (First link is an "It happened" link, the second disputes it)

    It took until 1988 for an American Commission to confirm what you're saying is totally obvious re: the Ukrainian Genocide.

    The wheels of truth don't always grind quickly or fine.
    posted by SaintCynr at 8:25 PM on August 12, 2008


    The wheels of truth don't always grind quickly or fine.

    True enough.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:30 PM on August 12, 2008


    Thanks for the post. Maybe your post is a sign mefi isn't becoming completely cutesy wootsey, namby pamby, hello-kitty playskool soft and friendly (with rounded corporate-attractive corners).
    posted by telstar at 8:50 PM on August 12, 2008


    Marisa Stole the Precious Thing

    The thing about keeping secrets is that even if one is caught on a few, or even many, it does not guarantee that they are caught on all. If something is a secret, it means people don't know about it; therefore, even if a few secrets are outed, there may still be others. It seems flawed to assume that if someone is caught on a lie that they are incapable of lying well. I think it only points out that everything they've done should be scrutinized.
    posted by Knigel at 9:39 PM on August 12, 2008


    Do I believe the US government was behind 9/11? No. But that's not the same as saying it's impossible for them to have been behind it.

    I can appreciate the proxy argument, as it's been used to fund countless conflicts around the world. But even in something as relatively straightforward as selling weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages, and then using this money to fund the Contras, the whole "secret" spills over one way or the other - through carelessness, resentment, not being paid enough, being offered a larger amount by another party, et cetera. Not to mention that these operations have all be justified easily enough because these are things happening to "other people" - not us. A project involving attacking American civilians on American soil wouldn't be like slipping past Afghani security forces, or bribing some banana republic dictator. We would need to either a) evade our own intelligence operatives in foreign fields (if we recruited overseas) as well as domestic surveillance or b) let them in on the secret and somehow get them all to keep quiet about killing a vast sum of our own, right here in America. This, to me, is on a much greater scale than a false flag op overseas. And that's what makes my alarms go off about this.

    So could the government have been behind this? There's a chance, yes. There's also a chance a safe will fall from an open window as I leave the office.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:41 PM on August 12, 2008


    Knigel, that is a good point. And it's certainly been true in my experience with people.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:44 PM on August 12, 2008


    Believe it or not, it's still possible to be agnostic on 9/11: to still believe that we don't have enough information to know for sure what happened.

    it's possible to be agnostic on whether the sun will rise tomorrow morning; on whether you'll be married someday, or if you're married, divorced - it's possible to be agnostic on whether you'll live to be 50 or 60 or 70 or ... it's possible to be agnostic on all sorts of things

    the question you ought to be asking is "is it useful to be agnostic?" and "for whom would it be useful if i don't believe the commonly accepted story?"

    my answer to the usefulness is no - it is fairly well established that arab radicals were in fact involved with this and it's also fairly well established that our government has not shown the kind of competence that they showed that day - over hundreds of millions of people saw what they saw that day - it's hardly useful to tell all of us that we were seeing things - anyone who has watched saw the planes fly in - anyone who watched saw the buildings collapse from the top

    it's all on tape - and it has all been explained using undergraduate physics and engineering that any reasonably educated person can understand

    the 2nd question is the most interesting to me - and having looked over some of the connections of those who insist on the "truth" of 9/11, i say they are somewhere to the right of george w bush and the john birch society and probably looking to start their own special breed of american fascism

    and those who believe their theories are being used as cat's paws to bring that fascism to life

    you believe what ever the hell you want, dude - but, me and a few hundred million people know what we saw, and we also know what kind of people want to tell lies about it
    posted by pyramid termite at 9:53 PM on August 12, 2008


    know what we saw

    I'm not going to go down this road, but the fact is there are a lot of holes in the official story. A lot of holes. Feel free to me-mail me if you want to discuss it further. And no, I'm not telling anyone they're seeing things, btw. What we saw is what we saw: but we saw only the surface of the events, and the details and explanations of what occurred and how it occurred were all filled out for us later.
    posted by ornate insect at 10:05 PM on August 12, 2008


    Metafilter: All your bullshit politics are belong to us.
    posted by TomMelee at 10:07 PM on August 12, 2008


    Surprise! Surprise! The comments above by ornate insect and mandal are rare examples of dispassionate rationality in this subject so oft fraught with madness. Bravo!
    posted by fairmettle at 3:29 AM on August 13, 2008


    When it comes to 9/11, the intensity of the dogma in support of the official story always gives me the creeps.
    posted by Goofyy at 6:17 AM on August 13, 2008


    Sounds more to me like the ramblings of a racist.
    posted by Banky_Edwards at 8:21 PM on August 12 [4 favorites +] [!]

    The "terrorists" were widely reported as being "men" who lived in "caves"-- but I guess it is easier to call me a racist than it is to even begin to try understanding the rest of what I said.

    Attacking the person rather than the argument is a rhetorical standard for those with nothing useful to say.
    posted by an egg at 8:04 AM on August 13, 2008


    As to the competence of the government, I agree that George W Bush looks like a monkey but Adolph Hitler looked like a clown so that argument doesn't really hold water. Carl Rove and Dick Cheney: they have more of a reputation for getting things done. Anyway, if Dubya's that incompetent, how on earth did he get elected to the highest office in the land? Twice!
    Fool me once...Um...Can anyone spell irony? (And no, Banky_Edwards, that isn't a personal attack)
    posted by an egg at 9:27 AM on August 13, 2008


    The "terrorists" were widely reported as being "men" who lived in "caves"-- but I guess it is easier to call me a racist than it is to even begin to try understanding the rest of what I said.

    A modern man living in a cave is not exactly what springs to mind when someone uses the word "caveman", and I'm pretty sure you know this.

    As to the competence of the government, I agree that George W Bush looks like a monkey but Adolph Hitler looked like a clown so that argument doesn't really hold water. Carl Rove and Dick Cheney: they have more of a reputation for getting things done. Anyway, if Dubya's that incompetent, how on earth did he get elected to the highest office in the land? Twice!

    I'd scroll up and re-read what was said about why some of us doubt the Bush administration was behind the attacks. It doesn't seem like you read or understood what we were trying to say.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:15 PM on August 13, 2008


    Marisa Stole the Precious Thing. Read, understood, didn't agree. Am I granted that privilege? And you're defending the fact that you re-elected Bush? Surely you wouldn't have elected a President, for a second time, who couldn't do that to an enemy!

    Maybe you don't know how he got re-elected, maybe you didn't vote for him, maybe you don't understand? I don't know.

    I still see no defense of the massive invasion of personal liberties since 9/11. Marisa Stole the Precious Thing will you defend that?
    posted by an egg at 12:33 AM on August 14, 2008


    Marisa Stole the Precious Thing. Read, understood, didn't agree. Am I granted that privilege?

    You certainly are, but I still don't really think you understood what was being said. Those of us who don't think the Bush administration (which includes more than George W. Bush, incidentally) was behind 9-11 hold this belief because of the evidence already presented in the official version of events, because of the logistics involved in the US government being able to pull this off, because of how poorly they've been able to cover up ops that would have been far easier to conceal, and because we have historically barely needed a reason to go to war. Your response - "If Bush is so incompetent, how did he get re-elected?" - is like asking the question, "If Bush is such an idiot, how did he get into Harvard and Yale?" It's neither here nor there.

    I didn't vote for Bush the first or second time and, like many, many other Americans, decry the way this adminstration has trampled on human rights. This sort of either/or insinuation from you doesn't help. I do believe this administration has taken advantage of 9-11, but I don't think they were behind it.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:51 AM on August 14, 2008


    This sort of either/or insinuation from you doesn't help

    I disagree. I think that every time somebody mentions that civil liberties in the US have been eroded in the name of 9/11 and that there is a lot of mistrust in the government it does help.

    Perhaps you'd rather I was silent on the issue.

    As for not understanding, A modern man living in a cave is not exactly what springs to mind when someone uses the word "caveman", and I'm pretty sure you know this. you really don't have much reason to comment on my comprehension.

    I didn't vote for Bush the first or second time... I don't really care. As an American with a vote you share collective responsibility for his election, that's how democracy works.

    I am saddened that you believe that buildings can implode for no good reason and that the official account is true. As a scientist, I am more skeptical of accounts of magical happenings and fairy tales. Frankly, I think anyone who believes the "official" story is a willing dupe, no wonder you struggled with my creative use of language.
    posted by an egg at 1:40 PM on August 15, 2008


    Also, having reread the comments about not believing the Bush regime capable, May I recommend this Metafilter link as a valuable source of offenses about which ...powerful people who'd love nothing more than to hit this administration, hard, and even put some of these guys in prison... seem totally unconcerned. I suspect a politician is capable of most things when he *is* above the law.
    posted by an egg at 2:39 PM on August 15, 2008


    « Older Clive Barker's new film The Midnight Meat Train ha...  |  Asra Q. Nomani... Newer »


    This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments