Reply #50: I doubt it

[abester]

because let's be honest here for a second: going about cold bloodingly murdering your opponents is very, very, _very_ politically inconvenient, especially if it ever should come out. Look at the fuss created about watergate, and that was a simple break and entering!

For example, allow me to dissect this one instance:

J. H. Hatfield, suicide?
So he smiled. So he waved and appeared to be happy. No big deal! 9 out of 10 times suicide is a completely irrational act and it's because of this impossible to take this as a premise for your case.
Secondly, and more importantly, why would officials in the higher echelons go trough the very ardeous ordeal of conspiring to commit murder, and then covering it up, simply because the guy wrote a less-than-colorful book which gets largely ignored by the subservient media which unquestiongly believe every word you say?

That simply doesn't make any sense at all! Perhaps it was murder, but extremely unlikely it should proof to have ties to this administration.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I'm convinced this administration had foreknowledge of the new pearl harbour. I'm convinced they conspired to allow a terror attack happen just to push trough their agenda, knowing that dozens, hunderds or more casualties were likely.
So if they are willing to do this, they are also morally capable of commiting murder and if it were somehow allowed, no hair on my head that doubts a Cheney or Rummy would do it at a whim. But they calculated well that 3000 killed would be another statistic, the people would rally behind them, and would never let or allow a critical light to shine upon the events leading to tragedy.

I appreciate the time and quality of your post, but personally, I think its far fetched. Besides, this gives the right wing nuts who are in control even more substance to throw at us and our couse.