Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why I don't think there will be a 9/11, part II:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 12:14 PM
Original message
Why I don't think there will be a 9/11, part II:
Edited on Thu Jun-03-04 12:21 PM by RandomKoolzip
Because Bushco got everything they wanted. They declared war on a country with large oil reserves, cut taxes for their buddies, rolled back environmental protections for those same buddies, finally made far-right dogma "legitimate" in the eyes of the media for the first time since McCarthyism, and in general got themselves and their buddies fat and rich (okay, so they were already rich...but this is how the greedy act...millionaires still playing the lottery....)...leaving death, misery, and a huge fucking mess in their wake.

My suspicion is that they'll LOSE in november and the new guy, Kerry, will be the one who'll have to clean up this mess. Again, this is EXACTLY what they want; Kerry will be so busy fighting off the slings and arrows from both sides of the aisle that he won't be able to get anything productive done and will spend years patching up relations with the rest of the world. It'll be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for Kerry, and he'll come out of it looking twenty years older than when he started. Behind the scenes, Bush's cronies will still be making moolah hand over fist, what with Halliburton rebuilding the ME and the diminishing stockpile of oil all to themselves. Power isn't what they're after; it's money.

I'm convinced 9/11 was an inside (OSP) job. There's simply no way our traditional intelligence services could have screwed up so badly. Since 1947, the CIA has made damn sure that the US was safe from attacks, and they've done a fantastic, albeit scary-as-fuck and not entirely legal, job of it. The CIA had, and has, massive amounts of money, technology, and immunity to get their job done. The Agency is involved in just as much nefarious canoodling as we've all heard. But they've never, ever allowed an attack happen on US soil. 9/11 was a lesson to them. They'll never let this happen again, nor will they let themselves be stovepiped by the OSP.

This "terror warning" for the summer is just more chicken little bullshit. With the news of Abu Ghraib, Plame, Michael Moore, etc. in the public eye, and a growing chorus of outrage, what they're doing is merely saving face; it's a reminder of 9/11/01, a sympathy ploy. They can't possibly make themselves look unprepared again....think of how that'd reflect on their efforts at homeland security. Bush and his beer buds are going to make it look like he's putting up a fight, but it looks to me like it'd be easier for the Bushklan to bow out in November, throw the fight, and let the new guy fix what they broke than to keep burrowing deeper into the hole they've dug for themselves, if I may mix multiple metaphors here. I mean, shit we used to get made fun of for believing in is finally hitting the news, and it doesn't look good for the Neocons. "Conspiracy nutballs" on the left are being vindicated.

Paranoia in this day and age is totally understandable. I can see why a lot of us are scared shitless right now. But take a step back and think: would Bushco orchestrate ANOTHER 9/11 just to have four more years of attacks from a burgeoning left-wing independent press, the rest of the world, and moderate GOPers? And would it be worth it to them to set up another inside job, resulting in countless deaths, when all that will do is make Bushco's security force look incompetent? They've already GOTTEN what they wanted the presidency for, and now their little party is in its waning stages, and mom and dad are coming home soon.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. I wish I could agree
with your very good post, however I don't think that those who crave absolute power ever give in without a fight. I think they need another term to fullfill their PNAC desires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. But they can give up PNAC knowing their bank accounts are full
and they have already lined up future contracts to increase those coffers.

I hope Kerry cancels every contract they set up and opens them up for new bidding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-03-04 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Someday the truth will come out.....
Edited on Thu Jun-03-04 12:58 PM by RandomKoolzip
Hindsight may prove that the only reason why Bush was appointed temporary president in the first place was so that his family friends' kids could buy ponies on the money from the private sector jobs their parents landed after leaving the * administration. Who the fuck knows? Being a part of a presidential cabinet sure looks good on a resume, though.....

It's all starting to look like an elaborate chain-letter scheme. But again, this is how the greedy act; just cuz you've won a billion dollars doesn't mean you stop betting on horses. This administration has been more deeply embedded on the boards or more multinationals than any previous administration...all those contracts.....Let's hope Kerry breaks up Halliburton the way Reagan broke up Bell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC