Why the Bush Administration Didn't Care About Al Qaeda

This entry's title is a copy of a blog from Huffington Post by Gareth Porter. I strongly recommend that you read it. This post will certainly make more sense if you do.

You can get it at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/why-the-bush-administrati_b_48650.html.

Gareth discusses how the Bush administration not only ignored the CIA's urgent and explicit warnings about Al Qaida, they actively tried to discredit them.

Here's my theory.

Bush NEEDED a catastrophe. Needed it real bad so he and the gang could start implementing the PNAC manifesto.

I believe that they nurtured and fostered Al Qaida just so it could come up with something for them to react to. Ever wondered why Al Qaida seems to be a one-trick pony? OK they pulled of some small stunts pre-911 but just the sort of thing that your average backyard terrorist might come up with. Then suddenly, BOOM! 911, with all the planning and resources that required. Since then... Nothing.

Who do we know thats good at fostering clandestine foreign guerrila organisations, making resources available and generally stirring things up whilst maintaining plausible deniability?

You guessed it. The American government.

So. My take on this is that Bush & co. Nurtured and protected Al Qaida, even from their own CIA, and created an environment in which Al Qaida could pull off 911. Once it was done, they pulled the financing and protection. Al Qaida joins the ranks of the other terrorist organisations. Scrabbling to make a headline here and there. That being the case, its unlikely we'll see another 911 (at least until Bush & co need one).

Don't be surprised if Osama bin Laden avoids capture indefinitely. Bush & co. wouldn't want him telling everyone who his partner in crime was. He might also blurt out something regarding his treatment in a US army medical centre just before 911.

Read Gareth's blog. It explains a lot.

can't believe people are still pushing this tired and wrong view

Sorry to say but this is classic LIHOP and as such not really even worthy of much discussion. To summarize the biggest points aginst this line of thought:

1) impossible to pin blame on anyone, allows the incompetence defense
2) preserves myth of evil muslim hijackers who hate our freedoms and so implicitly justifies TWAT (the war "against" terror)
3) supposes that obviously planted evidence like passports that survive massive explosive plane crashes are real, or idiotically faked without need. Fatty binLaden tape (fake) KSM "testimony" extracted, if at all, from a potentially tortured prisoner with no rights and not verified.
4) accepts official story without regard for the lack of (non-faked) evidence--where are the hijackers on the flight manifests? where are security cam tapes of hijackers in the airports where they are alleged to have boarded?
5) supposes that the demolition of the towers was prepared with the knowledge of imminent hijackings but with no guarantee that hijackers would actually succeed in hijacking planes or reaching their targets.

Someone may have bought this 3 years ago but we have long since moved on to more credible and accurate alternatives to the official surprise attack by evil muslim conspiracy theory.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

I guess it's debate time.

"Sorry to say but this is classic LIHOP and as such not really even worthy of much discussion."

Except that 1) much evidence points to this possibility, 2) it's easier for uninformed people to consider 3) various decisions by the people in charge were to simply allow it to proceed without interfering 4) we don't have a perp list that tells us even the nationality of those who allegedly planted bombs in the towers.

"To summarize the biggest points aginst this line of thought:

1) impossible to pin blame on anyone, allows the incompetence defense"

Nonsense. Deliberately allowing an attack is not incompetence. It's high treason.

"2) preserves myth of evil muslim hijackers who hate our freedoms and so implicitly justifies TWAT (the war "against" terror)"

There were a number of operatives in the country. Some were in flight school trying to learn how to "steer" a jumbo jet. There are extremist sects of Islam (Wahabbi) that are highly intolerant of infidels, including Shia Muslims. This isn't made up from thin air.

More subtle arguments are needed, than you say they just couldn't have done it and were not involved at all.

"3) supposes that obviously planted evidence like passports that survive massive explosive plane crashes are real, or idiotically faked without need. "

Agree that planted evidence is suspect. That doesn't mean they were not on the planes. It doesn't mean they were. This is an unknown.

"Fatty binLaden tape (fake)"

Probably NOT fake. The aspect ratio skewed his appearance.

http://911blogger.com/node/6723

Bin Laden is also reported dead since December 2001, so don't look for his capture (alive) any time soon.

"KSM "testimony" extracted, if at all, from a potentially tortured prisoner with no rights and not verified."

Agree. KSM is most likely dead. Testimony is fiction.

"4) accepts official story without regard for the lack of (non-faked) evidence--where are the hijackers on the flight manifests?"

The public has never actually seen the "flight manifests." We saw what the news organizations were allowed to show. The FBI can claim they wanted to hide the identities of the "hijackers" in order to help in their search for more terrorists.

" where are security cam tapes of hijackers in the airports where they are alleged to have boarded?"

Don't know. File a FOIA request. :>

"5) supposes that the demolition of the towers was prepared with the knowledge of imminent hijackings but with no guarantee that hijackers would actually succeed in hijacking planes or reaching their targets."

True enough. But, by whom?

"Someone may have bought this 3 years ago but we have long since moved on to more credible and accurate alternatives to the official surprise attack by evil muslim conspiracy theory."

No surprise at all. Clearly an orchestrated stand down from the centralized headquarters of CIA and FBI.

However, the evidence of this stand down is highly incriminating. Some alleged terrorists did exist, and were allowed to enter the country repeatedly.

It's not possible to say whether or not they actually hijacked and crashed the planes, however that's what the overwhelming majority believes happened. That is an important starting point to keep in mind.

If you're going to make the case for remote controlled aircraft, you will be marginalized, because it can't be proven with current data. It also sounds outlandish on its face, like space beams, holograms or what have you. The negatives outweigh the positives.

That said, I think it is likely the planes were remote drones as written about 40 years previously in Operation Northwoods.

Who was in control of those drones is an open question, and cannot be proven, so that gets us back to square one: convincing the unconvinced that something is wrong with the 9/11 story.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Excellent argument

5) supposes that the demolition of the towers was prepared with the knowledge of imminent hijackings but with no guarantee that hijackers would actually succeed in hijacking planes or reaching their targets.

I disagree with you on remote control planes, but this a great argument not only against LIHOP, but even against MIHOP with real hijackings -- the uncertainty would be too great. The planes were key to explaining the obliteration of the buildings.

I've been wanting to ask you -- if what you say about Dov Z is true, couldn't he have his hands in technology to remotely control not just planes, but media?