NationStates Jolt Archive

You may have thought the President had a secret agenda when he invaded Iraq. He didn't, writes Richard Cohen.

Old joke: A man repeatedly rides a bike across the Mexican-United States border. Each time, he's stopped by customs and the bike is taken apart. Nothing is found. Finally, one day a customs official offers the man immunity from prosecution if only he will tell what he's smuggling. The man pauses for a second, shrugs and says, "Bicycles."

I offer you this because I have just finished Bob Woodward's compelling new book on the Iraq war, Plan of Attack, and while it contains several gasps per chapter - more reasons why CIA director George Tenet should be fired, more proof that Condi Rice is in over her head and more reasons that Dick Cheney should be medicated - the stunning disclosure that I expected is simply not there.

I thought Woodward would reveal the real reason George Bush went to war in Iraq. But it turns out we already knew.

The "bicycle" in this case has been in plain sight: Bush's conviction that he is a servant of God and history, chosen to liberate Iraq, bring democracy to the Middle East and make sure the United States is safe from terrorism.
Advertisement Advertisement

In the two lengthy on-the-record interviews the President granted Woodward, he makes it abundantly clear that, somehow, this is all one package in his mind - even though to others, Saddam Hussein posed no danger to America at all. Among other things, he had no links to al-Qaeda and apparently had no weapons of mass destruction.

For a while, though, Bush was entitled to think otherwise about the weapons, because, among other reasons, the CIA director had assured him of their existence. "It's a slam-dunk case!" Tenet told the President - and then, for emphasis, repeated his assurance: "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"

For Bush, who surprisingly had some doubts about Iraq's WMD capabilities, Tenet's firmness was impressive. "That was very important," Woodward quotes him as saying.

But as Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair in an amazingly candid interview, Saddam's purported arsenal was almost beside the point - not the prime reason for going to war. The real reason, as Woodward's book makes clear, was the President's conviction that he was in an epochal fight against evil and had the historic opportunity to reorder the Middle East.

I confess that I have both known this and not known this. It has been apparent for some time but a little hard to comprehend. Possibly, I and others thought, there was another reason - like evening the score for Saddam's attempt to kill Bush's father or to finish the Gulf War, which had ended unsatisfactorily. After all, the intent to go to war had seemed to arise out of nowhere - a mere 72 days after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Where had it come from?

My guess is Cheney. The Bush-Cheney relationship remains as sealed as the one between Bush and his wife. Woodward seems to have been a fly on the White House wall, but we learn little about what Bush and Cheney discussed when they were not in formal meetings.

We do know, though, that Colin Powell considered Cheney obsessed with Iraq and so determined to make the case for war that the Vice-President exaggerated the threat and in some cases - this is me talking now - just plain lied.

Whatever the case, the real news in this engrossing book is not exactly what Bush says but that he says it at all - and sometimes, surprisingly, both articulately and with some erudition. Here is a man convinced that he did the right thing, convinced - despite contrary evidence - that there was some sort of link between Saddam and terrorism and that, as he told Mexican President Vicente Fox, "The security of the United States is on the line."

This is what Bush said on the eve of the war and what, presumably, he still believes.

When Woodward asked him last December what his reaction had been to Powell's private warning that things could go bad in postwar Iraq, Bush said: "And my reaction to that is, is that my job is to secure America. And that I also believe that freedom is something people long for. And that if given the chance, the Iraqis over time would seize the moment. My frame of mind is focused on what I told you - the solemn duty to protect America."

Those, though, were not the aims Powell had questioned. Rather, he had talked about the difficulties of implementing them in an ethnically fractured land where democracy was historically unknown. Bush simply ignored all that, because essentially he believed what he believed.

"I sat there somewhat nonplussed," Woodward wrote.

He had uncovered the bicycle.

Richard Cohen is a columnist with The Washington Post.

SOURCE

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/23/1082616327424.html

COMMENT

Frightening in its implications for the future.

I always did think that Cheney was a master-of-puppets style figure. It really suits him, hiding behind Bush or just hiding in general and pulling the strings.

As for the CIA being a master of puppets, everyone already knew that. Their cocane deals are practically proof of that.

If you want some further reading, read about Tower #7 on the internet. It's extremely interesting what you may find. Also, read in to the Pentagon attack. According to such things as debris record and photographs taken before the attack, the culprit wasn't a plane, but a cruise missile launched from a drone. I'm dead serious on this, and everyone who thinks I'm a crackpot can keep it to themselves. Do the research, see the light.

I always did think that Cheney was a master-of-puppets style figure. It really suits him, hiding behind Bush or just hiding in general and pulling the strings.

As for the CIA being a master of puppets, everyone already knew that. Their cocane deals are practically proof of that.

If you want some further reading, read about Tower #7 on the internet. It's extremely interesting what you may find. Also, read in to the Pentagon attack. According to such things as debris record and photographs taken before the attack, the culprit wasn't a plane, but a cruise missile launched from a drone. I'm dead serious on this, and everyone who thinks I'm a crackpot can keep it to themselves. Do the research, see the light.

ummm....it was obviously a plane. Ask any one of the New Yorkers that were there and survived 9/11

ummm....it was obviously a plane. Ask any one of the New Yorkers that were there and survived 9/11Newsflash: the Pentagon isn't in New York.

ummm....it was obviously a plane. Ask any one of the New Yorkers that were there and survived 9/11Newsflash: the Pentagon isn't in New York.

whoops...2:19 AM, self-explanatory

anyways, where the heck are terrorists gonna get a cruise missile?

whoops...2:19 AM, self-explanatory

anyways, where the heck are terrorists gonna get a cruise missile?Ah, but I didn't say it was terrorists, now did I? :wink:
Besides, if terrorists got a drone and a cruise missile, why would the government try and disguise it as a plane?

whoops...2:19 AM, self-explanatory

anyways, where the heck are terrorists gonna get a cruise missile?Ah, but I didn't say it was terrorists, now did I? :wink:
Besides, if terrorists got a drone and a cruise missile, why would the government try and disguise it as a plane?

kinda hard to disguise a drone missile as a plane with huge wings and that nose. The guiding system would be off by a long shot. Instead, we'd have a wreck 50 mi. East of the Pentagon


and of course it was the Terrorists. Bush wouldnt want tod estroy his own DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HQ!

kinda hard to disguise a drone missile as a plane with huge wings and that nose. The guiding system would be off by a long shot. Instead, we'd have a wreck 50 mi. East of the PentagonThe drone is a plane flown by remote control. It can launch a cruise missile. The theory is they painted the drone like a 747 .
and of course it was the Terrorists. Bush wouldnt want tod estroy his own DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HQ!But here's the thing, he didn't destroy it. Rather, he attacked a part of the Pentagon that they were planning to tear down for retrofitting anyway. Basically he did himself a favor.

Oh, and if terrorists hijacked a plane and flew it into the Pentagon, they'd have had to go ALL THE WAY AROUND IT to hit the section of the Pentagon that was hit. You know how hard it is to do an about-face in a 747? Neither do I, but I'm betting it's a bitch to pull off. Basically the terrorists would be going out of their way to help the president.

Bush never went to war.
That would mean putting his precious skin in harm's way.
He just keep sending other poor souls to war.
Then keeping them there when it's time for them to come home.

Bush never went to war.
That would mean putting his precious skin in harm's way.
He just keep sending other poor souls to war.
Then keeping them there when it's time for them to come home.

Good point.

I actually think I'd prefer to see him off to war than with the power to send others off to war.

Power without wisdom.

Tower #7 has exactly what to do with the Pentagon?

AS for the article...well anyone who has read the New American Century web site will not be surprised at any of this...

kinda hard to disguise a drone missile as a plane with huge wings and that nose. The guiding system would be off by a long shot. Instead, we'd have a wreck 50 mi. East of the PentagonThe drone is a plane flown by remote control. It can launch a cruise missile. The theory is they painted the drone like a 747 .
and of course it was the Terrorists. Bush wouldnt want tod estroy his own DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HQ!But here's the thing, he didn't destroy it. Rather, he attacked a part of the Pentagon that they were planning to tear down for retrofitting anyway. Basically he did himself a favor.

Oh, and if terrorists hijacked a plane and flew it into the Pentagon, they'd have had to go ALL THE WAY AROUND IT to hit the section of the Pentagon that was hit. You know how hard it is to do an about-face in a 747? Neither do I, but I'm betting it's a bitch to pull off. Basically the terrorists would be going out of their way to help the president.

747?? This and the comment about tower #7 means you have no credibility

Ugh, I am sick of powerful people thinking they are God's gift to the frigging world!!! Why can't they just think that they are not fighting for God but for humanity???


"With great power comes great responsibility"

Well, sice you didn't specify which war you were refering to, allow me to take the liberty with the words of our president on 20 September 2001 and make sure to read it carefully if you really want the answer to your question (bolded portions for effect):

President Bush's Address to Congress and the American People
Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001 (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/21/02114.shtml)

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans:
In the normal course of events, presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people.

We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground – passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight. (Applause.)

We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers – in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own.

My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union – and it is strong. (Applause.)

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. (Applause.)

I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing "God Bless America." And you did more than sing; you acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military.

Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle and Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership and for your service to our country. (Applause.)

And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.

We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America.

Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no truer friend than Great Britain. (Applause.) Once again, we are joined together in a great cause – so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend. (Applause.)

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars – but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war – but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks – but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day – and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.

Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world – and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics – a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.

This group and its leader – a person named Osama bin Laden – are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.

The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.

Afghanistan's people have been brutalized – many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.

The United States respects the people of Afghanistan – after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid – but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber – a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms – our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions – by abandoning every value except the will to power – they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. (Applause.)

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command – every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war – to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me – the Office of Homeland Security.

And tonight I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend – Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. (Applause.) He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that may come.

These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. (Applause.)

Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I've called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud. (Applause.)

This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded – with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all.

The civilized world is rallying to America's side. They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments. And you know what – we're not going to allow it. (Applause.)

Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.

I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith. (Applause.)

I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it.

I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.

I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today. (Applause.)

And, finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform, and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow, and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead.

Tonight I thank my fellow Americans for what you have already done and for what you will do. And ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I thank you, their representatives, for what you have already done and for what we will do together.

Tonight, we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights, and take new measures to prevent hijacking. We will come together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying, with direct assistance during this emergency. (Applause.)

We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home. (Applause.) We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act, and find them before they strike. (Applause.)

We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy, and put our people back to work.

Tonight we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers: Governor George Pataki, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. (Applause.) As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress, and these two leaders, to show the world that we will rebuild New York City. (Applause.)

After all that has just passed – all the lives taken, and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them – it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world. (Applause.)

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom – the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time – now depends on us. Our nation – this generation – will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. (Applause.)

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came – where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. (Applause.)

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. (Applause.)

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice – assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.

Thank you. (Applause.)

I am very, very sceptical. If Bush was fighting a classic resource war, then it makes sense. We may argue over the rights and wrongs, but it is undeniable that resource wars in principle are a rational foreign policy action with millennia of precedent.

The idea that Bush is waging a religious war informed by a messianic complex, that does not make sense. US foreign policy is quite conventional by the standards of imperialism, not radical. I have a hard time believing this.

Tower #7 has exactly what to do with the Pentagon?

AS for the article...well anyone who has read the New American Century web site will not be surprised at any of this...I never said that Tower #7 had anything to do with the Pentagon, read my post. Although, now that you mention it, it's a distinct possibility.

For you see, right after the twin towers were destroyed, Tower #7 imploded. Not fell down, imploded into its own footprint in a way that destruction crews use to cause the least collateral damage. Part of Tower#7, namely a CIA/FBI archive, was built like a neuclear bunker and would survive all of that under normal circumstances, and could only be collapsed if we wanted it to. Just food for thought.
747?? This and the comment about tower #7 means you have no credibilityBoeing-747's were the planes used in the attacks. Moron.
How does the tower #7 thing decrease my credibility in any way?

Tower #7 has exactly what to do with the Pentagon?

AS for the article...well anyone who has read the New American Century web site will not be surprised at any of this...I never said that Tower #7 had anything to do with the Pentagon, read my post. Although, now that you mention it, it's a distinct possibility.

For you see, right after the twin towers were destroyed, Tower #7 imploded. Not fell down, imploded into its own footprint in a way that destruction crews use to cause the least collateral damage. Part of Tower#7, namely a CIA/FBI archive, was built like a neuclear bunker and would survive all of that under normal circumstances, and could only be collapsed if we wanted it to. Just food for thought.
747?? This and the comment about tower #7 means you have no credibilityBoeing-747's were the planes used in the attacks. Moron.
How does the tower #7 thing decrease my credibility in any way?

heh...yeah I misread yer post on the Pentagon and #7...

However none of the planes used on that day were 747's...

anyways, what hit the pentagon was a plane because 1 guy who survived it was drenched in jet fuel, and had severly poisoned lungs from inhaling the jet fuel on the point of impact.

Bush never went to war.
That would mean putting his precious skin in harm's way.
He just keep sending other poor souls to war.
Then keeping them there when it's time for them to come home.

exactly

George Bush was an AWOL coward in '72, and he hasn't changed

However none of the planes used on that day were 747's...Hm? Then what were they? Maybe I got that one fact wrong, I don't know. All I know is, the rest of my stuff stands.

anyways, what hit the pentagon was a plane because 1 guy who survived it was drenched in jet fuel, and had severly poisoned lungs from inhaling the jet fuel on the point of impact.You know how easily the government can fake that?

And if he was drenched in jet fuel, why didn't he burst into flames? I was under the impression that the fuel tank supposedly caught fire in the Pentagon crash.

You know, it's entirely possible that this all started when Bush and Cheny were replaced by alien duplicates who, for reasons of their own, want to have global conflict continue after the end of the cold war, maybe to keep our attention away from the UFO sightings since 1947. I haven't seen any proof that this isn't true.

(OOC: There, now you have another crackpot theory to debate) :lol:

Tower #7 has exactly what to do with the Pentagon?

AS for the article...well anyone who has read the New American Century web site will not be surprised at any of this...I never said that Tower #7 had anything to do with the Pentagon, read my post. Although, now that you mention it, it's a distinct possibility.

For you see, right after the twin towers were destroyed, Tower #7 imploded. Not fell down, imploded into its own footprint in a way that destruction crews use to cause the least collateral damage. Part of Tower#7, namely a CIA/FBI archive, was built like a neuclear bunker and would survive all of that under normal circumstances, and could only be collapsed if we wanted it to. Just food for thought.
747?? This and the comment about tower #7 means you have no credibilityBoeing-747's were the planes used in the attacks. Moron.
How does the tower #7 thing decrease my credibility in any way?
747s were used in the attacks eh? They were 767s, dumbshit. Completely different aircraft. You're obviously a damned whacko. Spout whatever you want, most people are intelligent enough to realize you're a fucking nutjob.

You do realize that a drone is a tiny craft, usually 6-10 feet with a weight of around 30-50 pounds. Speeds are typically 50-100mph, though some can be fitted with more powerful engines that push it to 150-175mph. Exact numbers will vary depending on the model and features. The debris field recovered from the Pentagon, although minimal, does not match the debris characteristics of a drone craft, which could easily fit on your desk and still leave room to work. It's incredibly implausible that a drone craft could have impacted and caused this amount of damage... at best, it would have take out one guy's office.

The remains of the passengers and crew of Flight 77 were also recovered from the Pentagon, as well as the black box of the plane. Assorted other items have also been recovered -- for example, plane seats, which aren't typically found in either drones or cruise missiles. Here's a picture where some of this debris is clearly visible:

http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/slideshow/slideshow.cfm?ID=Pentagon1&NUM=8

Now, a cruise missile impact on the Pentagon would have punched through the outer walls of the building and exploded inside, the force of which would have pushed the blast (and the ensuing debris) outwards. Even the crudest of photos of the impact site clearly show the debris is collapsed inwards, indicating an explosion on the outer wall or just outside it, with the force of the blast pushing inwards. The blast pattern is also not indicative of a cruise missile impact, which is typically much more contained... the Pentagon suffered a very traumatic blast that was further fueled by combustibles -- ie, jet fuel. A cruise missile can leave a decent sized crater, to be sure, but it is a weapon designed for surgical strikes -- focused damage, minimum splash. The Pentagon suffered damage from the outer walls all the way to the inner courtyard, roughly 200 feet inside, spanning multiple floor levels.

You can see this very clearly in this handy little animation:
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gpentagon/frame.htm

But here's the thing, he didn't destroy it. Rather, he attacked a part of the Pentagon that they were planning to tear down for retrofitting anyway. Basically he did himself a favor.

Actually, the point of impact provided just as much damage to an area that had already been refitted as to an area that was being cleared for planned refitting. And further note that they don't "tear down" anything -- it's interior construction work, much like when a company moves into a new building and refits it to suit their needs. Think of it as remodelling.

Oh, and if terrorists hijacked a plane and flew it into the Pentagon, they'd have had to go ALL THE WAY AROUND IT to hit the section of the Pentagon that was hit. You know how hard it is to do an about-face in a 747? Neither do I, but I'm betting it's a bitch to pull off.

Radar tracking of the hijacked plane (which was a 757 in the case of the Pentagon) that struck the Pentagon show it was banking south and turning north, back towards DC. The movement is typical for a plane of that size -- it didn't do "Top Gun"-style moves, it just banked. The original target is assumed to have been the White House or Capitol, but for whatever reason the Pentagon was hit instead. It's also possible the Pentagon was the original intended target. And it's possible the pilot was simply losing control and aimed for the closest target of opportunity. Others assume the hijaker pilot simply got lost... I know I get lost most every time I go to DC, so it wouldn't surprise me. :p

Do the research, see the light.

I agree! Everyone should take the time to become informed, not just absorb whatever is thrown at them. Might I suggest that you expand your research efforts to include more than one source however, or sources that base their information on only one main source. Make sure to find credible sources that have actual facts to document their claims, rather than bold statements that have no founding. I could quite easily paint a compelling story to blame the aliens of Beta Pictoris (or, more realistically, the Klu Klux Klan, or Fidel Castro, or Canada) for the attack... but I could offer no physical evidence, much like the many conspiracy theorists who thrive on 9/11. I'm sure I'd get a few people to believe me though :)

Here's a few links I found interesting....

Here's a blurb on an interesting simulation of the Pentagon impact:
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

And here's a nice link about Conspiracy Theories relating to 9/11:
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
http://purportal.com/special/9-11/

And here's one on the Pentagon in particular:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

You do realize that a drone is a tiny craft, usually 6-10 feet with a weight of around 30-50 pounds. Speeds are typically 50-100mph, though some can be fitted with more powerful engines that push it to 150-175mph. Exact numbers will vary depending on the model and features. The debris field recovered from the Pentagon, although minimal, does not match the debris characteristics of a drone craft, which could easily fit on your desk and still leave room to work. It's incredibly implausible that a drone craft could have impacted and caused this amount of damage... at best, it would have take out one guy's office.I didn't say they flew a drone craft into the building, I said the drone launched a cruise missile. Why does no one read my posts?

As for its comparable size and shape, if you see something fly over your head and the government tells you it's a 767 (typo, don't get pissy on me people), you're inclined to believe them if you don't know better.

The remains of the passengers and crew of Flight 77 were also recovered from the Pentagon, as well as the black box of the plane. Assorted other items have also been recovered -- for example, plane seats, which aren't typically found in either drones or cruise missiles. Here's a picture where some of this debris is clearly visible:

http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/slideshow/slideshow.cfm?ID=Pentagon1&NUM=8This is all what the government reported, and if you're following what I'm saying, the government is trying to trick us. As for the debris picture, given the angle from the ground and the possibility of forced perspective, it could just as easily be a Pepsi can as airplane debris.

Now, a cruise missile impact on the Pentagon would have punched through the outer walls of the building and exploded inside, the force of which would have pushed the blast (and the ensuing debris) outwards. Even the crudest of photos of the impact site clearly show the debris is collapsed inwards, indicating an explosion on the outer wall or just outside it, with the force of the blast pushing inwards. The blast pattern is also not indicative of a cruise missile impact, which is typically much more contained... the Pentagon suffered a very traumatic blast that was further fueled by combustibles -- ie, jet fuel. A cruise missile can leave a decent sized crater, to be sure, but it is a weapon designed for surgical strikes -- focused damage, minimum splash. The Pentagon suffered damage from the outer walls all the way to the inner courtyard, roughly 200 feet inside, spanning multiple floor levels.Actually, it didn't suffer damage to the inner courtyard, only to the area before the first wall of the center. A plane going at the speed necessary would've breached all the walls of the inside and then some. As for the blast pattern, what's to say that the missile didn't explode before impact? That certainly would create the blast pattern you describe.

Actually, the point of impact provided just as much damage to an area that had already been refitted as to an area that was being cleared for planned refitting. And further note that they don't "tear down" anything -- it's interior construction work, much like when a company moves into a new building and refits it to suit their needs. Think of it as remodelling.I didn't mean that they'd be tearing down the building itself, rather some of the walls. I live in earthquake country, I know what retrofitting entails. In any case, building from the ground up is almost always easier than retrofitting, so the "terrorists" still at least broke even.

Radar tracking of the hijacked plane (which was a 757 in the case of the Pentagon) that struck the Pentagon show it was banking south and turning north, back towards DC. The movement is typical for a plane of that size -- it didn't do "Top Gun"-style moves, it just banked. The original target is assumed to have been the White House or Capitol, but for whatever reason the Pentagon was hit instead. It's also possible the Pentagon was the original intended target. And it's possible the pilot was simply losing control and aimed for the closest target of opportunity. Others assume the hijaker pilot simply got lost... I know I get lost most every time I go to DC, so it wouldn't surprise me. :pSo he banked all the way around the Pentagon, regained controll, flew just feet above the freeway and slammed into the Pentagon at ground level? I thought this was a guy who couldn't even pass a simulator test.

And don't even get me started on how the plane disappeared off the radar after it left its airport. According to the CIA, the plane flew below radar level over two states, and apparently no one noticed. Explain that, why don't you. :P

On a side note, it's so nice to meet a person that can argue their point logically. I really appreciate that, and enjoy arguing when it doesn't consist of a detailed post and then a post saying something along the lines of "OMG STFU I HATE U!".

...and the government tells you it's a 767 (typo, don't get pissy on me people), you're inclined to believe them if you don't know better... :shock: :roll:

I think I know where you live because I've been seeing this black helicopter circling over a nearby neighborhood for the last few days. When are those guy gonna make there move...enough with the suspense already.

For the record, I didn't read your whole post either.

What I want to know is, where does Bob Woodward get all of thee quotes from National Security meeting? Especially those in which he claims that Bush pulled various people aside and conducted some sort of shady business. Which of the people involed talked to him about what goes on in high-level secret meetings about national security? I find it very unlikely that any of them would.Is Woodward psychic?

For the record, I didn't read your whole post either.Then stfu. I included a don't-call-me-a-crackpot clause for a reason.

You do realize that a drone is a tiny craft, usually 6-10 feet with a weight of around 30-50 pounds. Speeds are typically 50-100mph, though some can be fitted with more powerful engines that push it to 150-175mph. Exact numbers will vary depending on the model and features. The debris field recovered from the Pentagon, although minimal, does not match the debris characteristics of a drone craft, which could easily fit on your desk and still leave room to work. It's incredibly implausible that a drone craft could have impacted and caused this amount of damage... at best, it would have take out one guy's office.I didn't say they flew a drone craft into the building, I said the drone launched a cruise missile. Why does no one read my posts?

As for its comparable size and shape, if you see something fly over your head and the government tells you it's a 767 (typo, don't get pissy on me people), you're inclined to believe them if you don't know better.

The remains of the passengers and crew of Flight 77 were also recovered from the Pentagon, as well as the black box of the plane. Assorted other items have also been recovered -- for example, plane seats, which aren't typically found in either drones or cruise missiles. Here's a picture where some of this debris is clearly visible:

http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/slideshow/slideshow.cfm?ID=Pentagon1&NUM=8This is all what the government reported, and if you're following what I'm saying, the government is trying to trick us. As for the debris picture, given the angle from the ground and the possibility of forced perspective, it could just as easily be a Pepsi can as airplane debris.

Now, a cruise missile impact on the Pentagon would have punched through the outer walls of the building and exploded inside, the force of which would have pushed the blast (and the ensuing debris) outwards. Even the crudest of photos of the impact site clearly show the debris is collapsed inwards, indicating an explosion on the outer wall or just outside it, with the force of the blast pushing inwards. The blast pattern is also not indicative of a cruise missile impact, which is typically much more contained... the Pentagon suffered a very traumatic blast that was further fueled by combustibles -- ie, jet fuel. A cruise missile can leave a decent sized crater, to be sure, but it is a weapon designed for surgical strikes -- focused damage, minimum splash. The Pentagon suffered damage from the outer walls all the way to the inner courtyard, roughly 200 feet inside, spanning multiple floor levels.Actually, it didn't suffer damage to the inner courtyard, only to the area before the first wall of the center. A plane going at the speed necessary would've breached all the walls of the inside and then some. As for the blast pattern, what's to say that the missile didn't explode before impact? That certainly would create the blast pattern you describe.

Actually, the point of impact provided just as much damage to an area that had already been refitted as to an area that was being cleared for planned refitting. And further note that they don't "tear down" anything -- it's interior construction work, much like when a company moves into a new building and refits it to suit their needs. Think of it as remodelling.I didn't mean that they'd be tearing down the building itself, rather some of the walls. I live in earthquake country, I know what retrofitting entails. In any case, building from the ground up is almost always easier than retrofitting, so the "terrorists" still at least broke even.

Radar tracking of the hijacked plane (which was a 757 in the case of the Pentagon) that struck the Pentagon show it was banking south and turning north, back towards DC. The movement is typical for a plane of that size -- it didn't do "Top Gun"-style moves, it just banked. The original target is assumed to have been the White House or Capitol, but for whatever reason the Pentagon was hit instead. It's also possible the Pentagon was the original intended target. And it's possible the pilot was simply losing control and aimed for the closest target of opportunity. Others assume the hijaker pilot simply got lost... I know I get lost most every time I go to DC, so it wouldn't surprise me. :pSo he banked all the way around the Pentagon, regained controll, flew just feet above the freeway and slammed into the Pentagon at ground level? I thought this was a guy who couldn't even pass a simulator test.

And don't even get me started on how the plane disappeared off the radar after it left its airport. According to the CIA, the plane flew below radar level over two states, and apparently no one noticed. Explain that, why don't you. :P

On a side note, it's so nice to meet a person that can argue their point logically. I really appreciate that, and enjoy arguing when it doesn't consist of a detailed post and then a post saying something along the lines of "OMG STFU I HATE U!".

Ok here is some logic...

You said 747...I called you on it...you affirmed it was 747's....then you claimed it was a typo....

That washes as much as your tinfiol hat inspired paranoia....

Ok here is some logic...

You said 747...I called you on it...you affirmed it was 747's....then you claimed it was a typo....

That washes as much as your tinfiol hat inspired paranoia....You thought the Pentagon was in New York. I don't think you're in a position to say anything. :roll:

I didn't say they flew a drone craft into the building, I said the drone launched a cruise missile. Why does no one read my posts?

My bad, I didn't explain myself well there -- I was covering all the topics you covered in your post -- which I did read btw :P

But you still leave the question hanging.... where's the drone? They have a limited flight range, especially when lugging something as heavy as a cruise missile around. In another post, you noted, "The theory is they painted the drone like a 747." Witnesses on the freeway (which, as you yourself note, the plane came close to hitting -- some drivers claim their car antennae were snapped by the plane brushing them) and in the apartments nearby (across the street I think they were, but not positive on that) clearly saw a large commercial jumbo jet... something with a wingspan considerably larger than the six feet of a drone or the slim profile of a cruise missile. When a plane passes overhead here, I can tell at a glance if it's a little Cessna job or a jumbo jet... I may not be able to tell if it's a 747 or a 767, but I can tell it's a big plane.

Here's some testimony from various witnesses, who clearly saw a large commercial aircraft:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

And, here's a video from an entrance security camera that shows the plane skimming the ground and impacting the building:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html

You also don't explain how the remains of the 64 passengers and crew of flight 77 were found inside the debris of the Pentagon -- some were even strapped in the remains of their seats. These people are known to have boarded the flight, most were seen off by friends and family, security tapes from the airports show them all boarding -- including the terrorists, who were later identified using some of this footage. So it's rather implausible they were killed beforehand and placed inside the building in advance. Likewise, there was insufficient time to kill them inflight, return to DC, land nearby (Reagan International, across the river, would have been the only nearby airport capable of handling such a large craft), move the bodies to the Pentagon, and then stage an attack. The flight is verified to have existed, the plane left the airport and was on radar tracks heading southwest. So, how do the bodies get there if not in the impact of a plane into the building?

The remains underwent a thorough autopsy as well, so foul play would have had a strong probability of being discovered.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6%5F48/national%5Fnews/12279%2D1.html


As for the debris picture, given the angle from the ground and the possibility of forced perspective, it could just as easily be a Pepsi can as airplane debris.

The scale of the picture clearly indicates a large item, at least 5-8 feet in length -- note the grass. Sadly, most of the 9/11 photos and resources are hard to find online nowadays -- attention has drifted, and web resources are diverted to more current uses, so a wider array of photos would take more time to find online than, honestly, it's worth. Sorry :) But there are a good number of photos in printed form that clearly show debris items that are found only on commercial craft -- plane seats, engine components (an engine from one of the wings actually punched a considerable ways through the building, leaving a "tunnel" that channeled fire into nearby sections), luggage, and other odds and ends.

For example, this reporter notes some of the debris seen and recovered:
http://www.suntimes.com/terror/stories/cst%2Dnws%2Dpent16.html
''There was a seat from a plane, there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane,'' she said. ''It smelled like it was still burning.''

Further in, a note of aviation fuel is found:
''The first thing you smell is the burning. And then you can smell the aviation fuel. And then you can smell this sickly, rotten-meat smell,'' he said.

Another report from the day of the impact also notes the recovery of fuselage debris:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/pentagon.terrorism/
"FBI evidence teams combing the area of impact along the building's perimeter found parts of the fuselage from the Boeing 757, said Michael Tamillow, a battalion chief and search and rescue expert for the Fairfax County, Virginia, Fire Department."

The bulk of the craft was vaporized on impact, much like the planes that struck the Towers -- remember, these are not military craft, they are lightweight, cheaply built, 20+-year-old craft with thin aluminum skins and lightweight plastic and aluminum interior construction. Watch the video of the WTC impacts -- those planes were flying twice as fast as the one that struck the Pentagon, yet they did not slice through... they were vaporized by the heat of the blast and their own kinetic energy.

Imagine putting your computer on the road and running into it with a semi travelling at 250-350mph -- that's a reasonable analogy to this impact, and I doubt you'd ever find all the bits and pieces of the computer (especially if you toss a combustible into the mix).


A plane going at the speed necessary would've breached all the walls of the inside and then some. As for the blast pattern, what's to say that the missile didn't explode before impact? That certainly would create the blast pattern you describe.

As I noted, a cruise missile simply wouldn't have the punch needed for that magnitude of damage -- especially when detonated beyond the outer wall of the Pentagon. Keep in mind that the Pentagon isn't a normal building -- it's solid concrete construction, reinforced with steel, and built to survive in a war. It was further reinforced after the Oklahoma City bombings, specifically to resist damage from outside explosions (i.e., car bombs). A missile detonation would have damaged the outer ring of buildings, but would lack the force to penetrate further without using non-conventional warheads -- which would have left a noticeable signature for even the most amateur of forensics teams (i.e., radiation, chemical residues, etc).

Keep in mind too that this particular plane lost much of his momentum due to his flight pattern and the fact that he struck the ground before impact -- technically, he didn't so much "fly" into the building, he "bounced" into it. Without that kinetic energy to push the plane, it becomes a blunt slap instead of a sharp pierce.


So he banked all the way around the Pentagon, regained controll, flew just feet above the freeway and slammed into the Pentagon at ground level? I thought this was a guy who couldn't even pass a simulator test.

Actually, he bounced off the ground before hitting the Pentagon, but otherwise, yes. And remember, their training focused mostly on maneuvering the craft in flight, not takeoffs and landing... they kinda didn't need to know that part :(


And don't even get me started on how the plane disappeared off the radar after it left its airport. According to the CIA, the plane flew below radar level over two states, and apparently no one noticed. Explain that, why don't you.

It didn't disappear off radar until close to D.C, when the pilot took it low to intentionally evade radar (which is why many feel he lost control and/or got lost -- larger planes like that can be a bit of a bear to handle at low altitudes, and unless you REALLY know the area, one road's gonna look like another at that speed). The transponder went offline shortly after the plane began banking south and heading north, back towards DC (this was over Kentucky I believe). Air controllers assumed the plane was heading back to the airport from which it left, and were focusing their attention on that path -- the assumption being the plane was suffering mechanical difficultiues, and the pilot was returning home.


On a side note, it's so nice to meet a person that can argue their point logically. I really appreciate that, and enjoy arguing when it doesn't consist of a detailed post and then a post saying something along the lines of "OMG STFU I HATE U!".

Thanks :) The way I see it, everyone has an opinion based on the information they have at hand. Sometimes it's wrong information, sometimes it's right... the fun part is trying to figure out which is which :)

Just so you know, btw, Thierry Meyssan has been pushing this particular theory of yours since shortly after the attacks. Other than a few photos from awkward angles that don't actually show anything, he has no solid evidence of a missile. It kinda reminds me of the whole "face on Mars" photo that eventually turned into a quite elaborate "city on Mars..." all that from one grainy 72dpi false-color image. Of course, my personal favorites are the Weekly World News photos -- the Nessie ones are classics! I went to college with one of the guys who used to make some of their images. :P

Ok here is some logic...

You said 747...I called you on it...you affirmed it was 747's....then you claimed it was a typo....

That washes as much as your tinfiol hat inspired paranoia....You thought the Pentagon was in New York. I don't think you're in a position to say anything. :roll:

No I did not. I am fully aware of where the Pentagon is. yeesh! Teenagers! :roll: