This is part of an orchestrated Democratic attack with the deliberate goal of planting the impression in the average American that George Bush knew specifically about the planned attacks on the WTC and Washington, and somehow sat on the information. Of course, they would never say so specifically, and none of the objective evidence even remotely indicates this scenario, but every word and vague accusation out of the collective mouth of the Democratic Party is carefully designed to make exactly that unspoken impression. And of course, their toadies in the media jump when the Democrats say frog.
They are calling for hearings, which will allow Democratic congressmen and Senators (who are watching the November elections approaching like an oncoming locomotive) to posture for the cameras and stretch this bullshit out for weeks. Personally, I think the call for hearings will be considerably muted once it is realized that as many Democrats (including Clinton and Gore) might wind up hanging from meathooks as Republicans.
The types of warning received, about hijackings in general, are similar to such warnings that routinely hit the Executive department every day. The proper agencies were notified. Nothing implied anything other than the routine type of "fly to Cuba" hijacking. There was NO mention of using the planes to destroy buildings. In hindsight, it all seems to come together, but it seems a stretch to assume that failure to connect the far-flung dots prior to Sept. 11 shows incompetence on the part of the Administration, the FBI, or any other Federal agency. Inertia, maybe.
This will be in all the headlines for a while, and then blow over just like the picture thing did, and then they'll try something else.
Current Events » in reply to supposed clues re: 9/11
Re: supposed controversy
The whole thread (19 posts)
- supposed clues re: 9/11
- Re: supposed clues re: 9/11
- Couple of thoughts
- Re: supposed clues re: 9/11 = The attack on the SS Cole. n/t (n/t)
- Re: supposed controversy
