Gold9472
12-21-2006, 09:46 AM
9/11: The Bush-League Version of Pearl Harbor?
http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/blog.php?id=267
BY RUSS WELLEN
12.21.2006 04:16 | DISPATCHES
The trouble with means to an end is that it always seems to end mean.
When the 9/11 Truth Movement proposes that the Bush administration, or elements thereof, aided and abetted 9/11, the first reaction is often: "I just can't picture our government doing that."
Most are unaware of decorated World War II veteran Robert Stinnett's groundbreaking "Day of Deceit," which, with chilling documentation, demonstrates that Franklin Roosevelt not only allowed Pearl Harbor to occur, but instigated it. FDR wasn't the first leader to ruthlessly nudge developing events into a war. Nor was he the last.
Try citing that precedent while engaged in a dialogue about 9/11's inconsistencies. In the process of discounting 9/11 alternate history as a conspiracy, your counterpart is likely to reply: "If that's true, at least he did it for his country."
Oh, I get it. A good president is capable of using horrible means to an end he deems deserving. But a bad president like Bush (or his people) would never resort to something like that.
http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/blog.php?id=267
BY RUSS WELLEN
12.21.2006 04:16 | DISPATCHES
The trouble with means to an end is that it always seems to end mean.
When the 9/11 Truth Movement proposes that the Bush administration, or elements thereof, aided and abetted 9/11, the first reaction is often: "I just can't picture our government doing that."
Most are unaware of decorated World War II veteran Robert Stinnett's groundbreaking "Day of Deceit," which, with chilling documentation, demonstrates that Franklin Roosevelt not only allowed Pearl Harbor to occur, but instigated it. FDR wasn't the first leader to ruthlessly nudge developing events into a war. Nor was he the last.
Try citing that precedent while engaged in a dialogue about 9/11's inconsistencies. In the process of discounting 9/11 alternate history as a conspiracy, your counterpart is likely to reply: "If that's true, at least he did it for his country."
Oh, I get it. A good president is capable of using horrible means to an end he deems deserving. But a bad president like Bush (or his people) would never resort to something like that.