9/11, a little bit too convenient for the Bush Administration

[ck4829]

Didn't they have plans to invade Iraq a long time before 9/11/01?

Wasn't Bush's Presidency a complete failure (still is, you just wouldn't know it by looking at the 'liberal' media) until 9/11/01?

Just as Vince Foster's death was a little bit too convenient for the Anti-Clinton RW'ers, 9/11 was a little bit too convenient for the Bush Administration.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. I thought that for a while

Can't wait to hear what comes out about this in the future.

[NYC Liberal]

2. Definately. Just look at it:

In the early '90s the high-level Republicans get voted out of office. A bunch of them write a document saying that we should invade Iraq - but that the justification for it could only come from some Pearl Harbor-type attack which they could pin in Iraq.

So 10 years later, the exact same people come back into power. A few months after they take office - boom, a Pearl Harbor-type attack takes place.

Coincidence?

[Dancing_Dave]

5. You sure did say that well in a few words!

Sounds like you could really benefit from reading Webster Tarpley, who has unraveled quite a bit about how 9/11 came down from Washington to New York. You can get his whole book "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA" at
http://www.waronfreedom.org/index.html

There's also have a free excerpt from the book available, Chapter 6 "The Collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1,2 and 7" ....really great investigative journalism on a difficult, somewhat technical subject. He really makes it as clear as possible.
http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf

[vince3]

3. Eight months after....

...Bush and the republicans stole the 2000 election, PNAC got the Pearl Harbor it had always wanted. It is awfully fishy.

[staticstopper]

4. Amen!

Ever hear neo-cons try to talk around that issue? It's not pretty.