|
Considering the big holes in the official 9/11 story--for instance (the one that really sticks in my craw), the NORAD standdown--it is quite plausible that there was an inside Bushite conspiracy to let 9/11 happen. Another craw-sticker (for me): Where was Donald Rumsfeld during the critical hour, after the WTC towers were hit, when the remaining planes were headed to DC? He said he was "in a meeting," oblivious to the attack, but he had, six months before, pulled all NORAD decision-making powers into his own hands. And he was AWOL, while NORAD fell into confusion about what was going on? Not believable.
My interest in Rumsfeld's tale about where he was on 9/11 was piqued by Rumsfeld's curious resignation, days after the '06 elections, but with no change of policy on Iraq. I don't see Rumsfeld resigning out of concern for public opinion. Neither he nor any Bushite gives a fuck about public opinion. Fear of a 'Democratic' Congress? Right. Pelosi's announcement took care of that. ("Impeachment is off the table.") Failure in Iraq? Why would he care about that either? In his view, it is not a failure. They got the U.S. military permanently ensconced in the Middle East, and looted us of billions and billions of dollars. And his deliberate chaos and "divide and conquer" policy has worked beautifully. So why did he resign?
My theory: Somebody on the inside finally got the goods on him, on 9/11--or possibly on some other grave matter, such as torture for fun and profit, or masterminding the plan to take WMDs into Iraq, after the invasion (to be "found" by the U.S. troops who were "hunting" for them)--a plan that went awry, and may be connected to the outing of Valerie Plame and her entire WMD counter-proliferation network. (The mysterious death of the Brits WMD expert, David Kelly, four days after Plame was outed, makes this theory all the more intriguing.) There are several possibilities, but this fracas inside Bushdom about the CIA Inspector General investigating CIA failures connected to 9/11, and the attempt to bully or suppress him, makes 9/11 a good candidate for the real reason that Rumsfeld resigned. Remember, he was running his own intel shop--the Office of Special Plans--UNDERMINING and circumventing the honest professionals at the CIA, and likely was doing so back BEFORE the Iraq WMD lies and invasion. Could the original purpose of the OSP have been to run the insider network that let 9/11 happen? If so, he likely would have needed some moles in the CIA, to spy on, and attempt to head off, anyone who got leads on the 9/11 attack.
I wonder, too, about John O'Neil--the FBI agent who was following the Yemen money trail, and died in the WTC on 9/11; the Moussaoui computer that Colleen Rowley wanted to get into, that summer (and was denied a FISA warrant for), and its odd connection to Nick Berg (who was later beheaded on video in Iraq, supposedly by Al Qaeda)--and a number of other evidences that investigation of Al Qaeda was squelched by the Bushites. WHY ELSE would the Bushites be so nervous about the CIA IG investigating this matter? You'd think they would WANT to know what went wrong? And I also think we need to ask: Why now? (The IG didn't do this five years ago???) And: Why this leak about the investigation, and the attempt to suppress it?
There are other evidences that SOMETHING has happened, within our political/government establishment to curtail the Bush Junta. Rumsfeld is out. Rove is out. Gonzales is out. Three major MAJOR players. And now--this theory would have it--these inside investigators are getting close to some central crime, and Bush/Cheney and others who are still in place, but with curtailed power, may be getting very nervous that, although they have weathered the outcry for impeachment (which I think Pelosi may have traded for no attack on Iran), they could still be "gotten"--exposed, even prosecuted--for major hidden crimes, such as conspiracy on LIHOP.
|