PDA

View Full Version : Just to say my peace


fightingdoxies
09-13-2007, 06:30 PM
Saw the video... not really that impressed. I swear you give some nut jobs an inch and they run with it until in the end they look foolish. They take quotes and edit them to make their theory sound correct along with facts they believe to be true but in reality are. It was what it was... a tragedy. No more, no less.

3 Point Stan
09-13-2007, 07:40 PM
I feel there are some underlying truths to that video. I feel there were cover-ups and there are valid conspiracies. I believe there is more to 9/11 than I may ever know and I do believe that there the current administration conspired to use certain events surrounding 9/11 to, if you will, "get the war they wanted." But I do beleive the attacks themselves were carried out by non-US terrorists.

I will say this in defense of an administration that I am counting the days to see leave office, I believe that even if they were tipped off before the events and had an idea of the possibility of the terrorsist activities that were going to transpire and were not able to act on them in time, I wouldn't necessarily want that to be admitted as a global truth. A nation as large as the U.S. will have some chinks in the armor and the less people are able to exploit them, the better. As someone who enjoys civilian life, I don't want to watch a CNN broadcast outlining the areas in which a terrorist organization can exploit my nation's defense strategies and ultimately bomb me while riding the D train of the Green Line as I approach North Station. Not everything is for public comsumption. unfortunately, as a result, conspiricy theories will always be drawn.

fightingdoxies
09-13-2007, 08:04 PM
I do believe that there the current administration conspired to use certain events surrounding 9/11 to, if you will, "get the war they wanted." But I do beleive the attacks themselves were carried out by non-US terrorists.



Exactly

Mikiemo83
09-14-2007, 01:09 AM
i watched about 40 minutes of it, I agree with fightingdoxies

luso2kx
09-14-2007, 01:24 AM
Saw the video... not really that impressed. I swear you give some nut jobs an inch and they run with it until in the end they look foolish. They take quotes and edit them to make their theory sound correct along with facts they believe to be true but in reality are. It was what it was... a tragedy. No more, no less.The thing that gets me about conspiracy theorists isn't that they believe in that tripe, but that they DEMAND that you believe in their clown logic too. Even going as far is berating and demeaning you if you don't side with them.

Mark_Henderson
09-14-2007, 11:35 PM
I haven't seen the video you guys are referring to, but it would have to present VERY solid evidence to get me to consider the possibility that the administration purposely allowed 9/11 to happen, which is a FAR more unlikely scenario than 24 guys with Exacto blades making it through lax security. Never underestimate the power of buerocratic incompetence.

That said, I have no doubt that the administration manipulated the events of 9/11 to a massive degree after it happened. I'm sure Karl Rove would be happy to fund the goofy conspiracy theorists because they draw people's attention away from what the administration actually did do, and help them to dismiss all of their critics more easily.

groganfan
09-19-2007, 02:53 AM
i've seen many conspiracy theories about 9/11, and can't believe people believe in it. they also can't decide if it was for oil or a grand insurance fraud. i think it's just a reason to sell books on the subject. there's your conspiracy.

Bases Loaded
09-30-2007, 04:02 AM
Dudes and dudettes, sorry for the rudeness before I ain't usually like that, especially on a internet message board. I was going through some rough shit at home but it's good now.

And I just like to keep an open mind. Most of the time I feel that there is just something strange about what is going on in this world and I tend to sense BS when I see it. I look for answers. I don't mean to be a prophet and shit. Just was in the venting mood.

To make it clear, none of the above theories I believe in. In fact, I believe in documented history. This is about Isreal's relations with the US plain and simple. Britain laid the groundwork for it after WWI and we finished it after WWII and since then we have allowed civil war in Palestine and now occupy two, and soon to be three, of their territories (unless someone steps up for Iran). We do this without any support from the UN with the exception of Britain. Ranked 2nd and 3rd in the last 2 years in FORBES as their most powerful lobbyists are the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee) They were behind only the AARP and NRA.


AIPAC's stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation including:

* Pressuring the Palestinian government (especially Hamas) to adhere to Israeli demands through embargoes and UN resolutions.
* Strengthening the bond between Washington and Israel through shared intelligence and foreign military and economic aid (totaling $2.52 billion in 2006).
* Condemning the actions of Iran for pursuing nuclear status and questioning the Holocaust (also levying financial restrictions to hinder nuclear development).
* Additional actions against countries and groups hostile towards Israel's continued existence, including Libya, Lebanon, Hizballah (as well as their associated television broadcasts), and Syria.


The thing is ... all of the buildings on that day imploded instead of just collapsing including one building that wasn't even hit. The planes hit the middle of the towers but the entire buildings crumbled, and if you watch the videos on any site you can see explosives going off on every few levels. GW's brother was head of security and the entire building was shut down for two days weeks before the attacks. No response from Norad or any military base. 30 minutes after the attack the news was showing 30 Arabs as suspects - suspects that were blown up in planes and don't tell me that's intelligence because if that is, then the US let this happen.

There are too many questions that have questionable or non-existent answers. I just can't bring myself to believe what any of our leaders say.

NEM
10-18-2007, 04:45 AM
The sad part of all of this is that, in fact, the administration did manipulate anything, and everything that the could in order to get the congress, and the American people to commit to the attack on Iraq, no matter how many Americans died, or were maimed.

It was a plan that George W. Bush had since BEFORE he became president when, in 1999, he said, "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade---if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

And, of course there was the formation of the "White House Iraq Group" that was put together for the sole purpose of selling the war to the American people.

From Wickipedia......

The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the marketing arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up in August 2002 by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's functions and influence is the "escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the U.S., including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud'".

The members of the White House Iraq Group include: [8][9][10]

* Karl Rove
* Karen Hughes
* Mary Matalin
* Andrew Card
* James R. Wilkinson
* Nicholas E. Calio
* Condoleezza Rice
* Stephen Hadley
* I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby
* Michael Gerson...

And this is the timeline for the Iraq Group leading up to the Invasion of Iraq....

Soon after WHIG was formed, the Bush Administration's claims about the danger Iraq posed escalated significantly:

* July 23, 2002: The Downing Street Memo was written, in which British intelligence said "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

* August, 2002: White House Iraq Group formed.

* September 5, 2002: In a WHIG meeting, chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson proposes the use of a "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" metaphor to sell the American public on the supposed nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein. According to Newsweek columnist Michael Isikoff, "The original plan had been to place it in an upcoming presidential speech, but WHIG members fancied it so much that when the Times reporters contacted the White House to talk about their upcoming piece [about aluminum tubes], one of them leaked Gerson's phrase — and the administration would soon make maximum use of it."

* September 6, 2002: In an interview with the New York Times, Andrew Card did not mention the WHIG specifically but hinted at its mission: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." On September 17, 2002, Matt Miller stated on NPR that the above quote from Andrew Card was in response to the question: "... why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq"

* September 7, 2002: Judith Miller of The New York Times reports Bush administration officials said "In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium." In fact, many government officials had concluded the tubes were unsuitable for uranium refinement.

* September 7-8, 2002: President Bush and nearly all his top advisers blanketed the airways, talking about the dangers posed by Iraq.

o On NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Richard Cheney cited the New York Times article, and accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past fourteen months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.

o On CNN, Condi Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

o On CBS, President Bush said U.N. weapons inspectors, before they were denied access to Iraq in 1998, concluded that Saddam was "six months away from developing a weapon." He also cited satellite photos released by a U.N. agency Friday that show unexplained construction at Iraq sites that weapons inspectors once visited to search for evidence Saddam was trying to develop nuclear arms. "I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said.


* October 14, 2002: President Bush says of Saddam "This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army."


* January 21, 2003: Bush says of Saddam "He has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies."


* February 5, 2003: Colin Powell addresses the United Nations, asserting that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

* March 19, 2003: The U.S. invades Iraq....

And Finally, My very own manuscript.....NEM



Will The Real "Manchurian Candidate" Please Stand Up

By

Mike Allen aka NEM



When Richard Condon wrote his cold war thriller, "The Manchurian Candidate", in 1959, he, probably, had no idea, or thought, that it would be played out, for real, within the confines of the United States.

And yet, after two film adaptations of his novel, here we are, in the United States of America, living it out, for real, the suspense, and the horror or controlling the mind of the most powerful man on the planet for the purpose of world wide dominance.

In the first film, in 1962, the plot followed the central concept of Condon's book, where the son of a powerful political family was brainwashed into becoming an unwilling assassin, for the Communist party.

The second version, released in 2004, while the plot still centers on a candidate brainwashed with the involvement of his mother and her own political aims, the mechanics of the story and the parties involved are quite different in cases.

This version brings us into the more modern world of today. The brainwashing is conducted by a large worldwide corportation that is a huge government contractor. (similar to the Carlyle Group) or similar to an oil and military services contractor (similar to Haliburton), with the end result to expand corporate influence as well as making themselves extremely wealthy through huge government contracts.

Now, before I continue, does any of this have a ring of familiarity?

Let's go back to 1992. Shortly after , what is called Gulf War I, and take a quick loolk at what is known as the PNAC…The Project For A New American Century and, The Clean Break Policy, which was written, and formulated in 1996.

If you're not familiar with those two items, lets take a brief look at the two of them, at least the names of the individuals who wrote them, and are responsible for them.

First, the PNAC, and a few of the contributors to it's birth.

Former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

A few others.Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, president of American Values James B. Borow, former deputy director of the NSA, co-founder of the Illinois Center for Core Values Rudy Boschwitz, former US Senator from Minnesota Eliot A. Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University Steve Forbes, multi-millionaire publisher of Forbes Magazine, former presidential candidate Aaron Friedberg, director of the Center of International Studies Frank Gaffney, columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy Fred Ikle, Center for Strategic and International Studies Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist Christopher Maletz Daniel McKivergan Norman Podhoretz, Hudson Institute Dan Quayle, former vice-president

Kind of looks like the gathering of neo con who's who, doesn't it?

How about The Clean Break Policy? Any familiar names amongst this group?

According to the report's preamble, it was written by the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, which was a part of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle was the "Study Group Leader", but the final report included ideas from James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser.

The following paragraphs are excerpts from the Wikipedia outline of The Clean Break Policy.

Commentator Karen Kwiatkowski has pointed to the similarities between the proposed actions in the Clean Break document, and the subsequent 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Patrick J. Buchanan, in reference to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the report, wrote that "Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish 'the principle of preemption,' has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States."

George Packer, in his 2005 non-fiction analysis of the Iraq war The Assassins' Gate, explicates the Clean Break report "through the lens of Wurmser's subsequent AEI-published volume, which argued (in 1999) that America's taking out Saddam would solve Israel's strategic problems and leave the Palestinians essentially helpless."

Phyllis Bennis has pointed to the similarities between the proposed actions in the Clean Break document, and the subsequent 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Sidney Blumenthal wrote in August 2006 that "In order to try to understand the neoconservative road map, senior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East

peace process."

With all of that being said, how does that bring us to the title of my story, "Will The Real "Manchurian Candidate Please Stand Up?"

It's really very simple. Even with all that this group of neo cons planned, and wrote, they had no way of implementing it while a Democrat was in the office of the presidency.

It was then that they decided that the only way they could put the wheels in motion was to control the White House, and , moreso, to control the occupant of the White House.

That was where George W. Bush came along, for he was the perfect candidate to fill the mold of their "Manchurian Candidate."

George had a recognizable name. His father, of course, being the 41st president of the United States. He was, allegedly, a re-born Christian, perfect to gather in the southern bible belt vote.

His mind, so some believe, including yours truly, had been warped by years of excessive drinking and the use of hard, very hard drugs. For all intents and purposes, he had become a simpleton, or at least, had become even more simple minded than he had been before his drug, and alcohol usage.

Here was a man, George W. Bush, with the mind of a boob, and yet he had the name power, and the following of a radical hordes of religious fanatics, that he just might be able to get elected to the presidency, with a little help, of course.

So, the plan was put into motion to get their "Manchurian Candidate" into the White House….and, it almost failed, if not for one of their fellow neo cons, the one who stays under the radar most of the time, James Baker, to come to the rescue and with a little twisting and bending, managed to get the Supreme Court to anoint Bush as the first Fascist Dictator of the United States.

The plan needed a control, though. Much like in Condon's novel, they needed a "Queen of Diamonds" to trigger their man….. To get him to do their bidding…..

Who was it that they could rely on?

Well, if you all recall, before the election, George W. Bush need ed to get a running mate. So, his dad, the elder Bush, sent him Dick Cheney, one of his long time confidants. He told little Georgy that the nice man, Mister Cheney, would go out and search, and search, the entire country and come back with the "right man" to be on the ticket as VP candidate.

And, as we now know, Cheney did EXACTLY that, he came back, told George that he had found the PERFECT choice to be the Vice President…….HIMSELF.

The Queen of Diamonds, the TRIGGER, was now in place.

The election came, and George W. Bush was in the oval office. But, how would they accomplish their goals, how would they get him to , unknowingly, implement the PNAC and the Clean Break Policy?

September 11, 2001 happened, and it gave them the opportunity they had waited so long for…… World Domination, beginning with domination of the middle east.

George w. Bush had carried with him, for many years, a hatred for Saddam Hussein. It was Hussein who allegedly had attempted to put an assassination attempt out against W's father.

And ever since that day, W had carried his hatred, his desire to eliminate Saddam Hussein, no matter the cost.

So they begin to imbed it in his head, Saddam was a bad man, Saddam had WMD's, Saddam was a threat to America, Saddam this, Saddam that. They were triggering their "Manchurian Candidate."

They got him to lie, to deceive the American congress, the American people, and they got him to implement what was written in the Clean Break Policy as the first step towards fulfilling their goals.

And, they would do so by using the simplistic mind of George W. Bush to get it all accomplished.

By telling Bush that he would have the opportunity of fulfilling his long time agenda, it enabled George W. Bush to fulfill his vendetta, while at the same time, all of those that had spent nearly 20 years waiting for the opportunity, they were about to reap the spoils of what they had planned, and planned, and planned.

And only until George W. Bush entered the scene, they had to wait…. Until, on January 20th, 2001, on a cold day in Washington D.C., they had what they needed, in place…. And all that needed was for the right moment to occur and they would then, pull the trigger, and unleash the REAL MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, George W. Bush.

And today, we are where we are, because of a book written, in 1959, by Richard Condon, "The Manchurian Candidate."

================================================== ===

Need any more be said?................NEM

fightingdoxies
10-19-2007, 08:11 PM
Need any more be said?................NEM

Only dont blame me... i didn't vote for him

Bases Loaded
10-19-2007, 09:33 PM
Nice piece, NEM. Very informative and I like your fictional twist on GW's role in all of this.

Regardless of what or who was behind the 9/11 attacks, it is impossible to deny that our televisions have been flooded with propaganda and policies have been put into place to benefit not us, the people, but the - what else can I call them - totalitarians.

Orwell nailed the future in the book 1984. Ingsoc, newspeak, doublespeak, and the party's principles are harsh realities that are being implemented as we speak. The principles?

* WAR IS PEACE
* FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
* IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


This quote from O'Brien really stands out.

The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

I hate coming off so doom and gloom but the more I learn the more I can't help thinking about it and how all of this is happening right before my eyes.