Be alert for any statements equating any Shia groups with "our Founding Fathers."
Posted by James E. Powell at December 2, 2006 09:24 AMOff Thread, but the Government has released new 9/11 video showing the Pentagon attack. Cable news is showing it. Oddly, no plane is in the video, simply the explosion at the Pentagon. CNN is showing the clip, with the note that it "does not show the airplane". Now lets think about this a minute. The Video,from a parking lot camera in the vacinity, has been in FBI custody for years, apparently. I know how these cameras work- they are ON or Off. So where is the plane? Where is the footage just before the shown explosion that would clearly show a huge airliner flying in at just above ground level, clearly in the viewfinder of this camera? Why,why wouldn't the government, keenly aware of the "tin hat" theory that there was no plane, not show the *plane* hitting the building, instead of skipping that and just showing the explosion, an explosion that appears to come from the building. Why not show the plane????
Posted by T2 at December 2, 2006 10:43 AMT2, your comment is also your answer. To distract you, to engage you, to make you comment about it and send others to CNN's website and tv channel to drive up ratings. Then they can say "lookit the tinfoilhat dems, those America haters!" In a slow news month, they are trying to manufacture a new story out of old controversy. If they showed the clip of the plane, that would end the story forever. Why would they want to do that?
Posted by iamcoyote at December 2, 2006 11:16 AMWell, I don't know if I'd call this a slow news month - I guess if you are talking about the first two days of December. I seem to remember an important election, not to mention an increasingly horrible war in Iraq providing news fodder in the last month. Maybe they can't show the plane? Maybe, if they are really trying to fan the "tin haters", CNN will ask the FBI where the preceding 5 seconds of film is?
Posted by T2 at December 2, 2006 12:42 PMBringing this discussion ON TOPIC!
The supposed "El Salvador" option is inside the beltway gossip by the ignorant members of the chattering class. Of course that may include some White House and Pentagon insiders, but nonetheless.
Saudi Arabia just torpedoed any such ideas, not that they were anything but loony-toons for genocide freaks to begin with.
Nawaf Obaid, [Saudi security advisor] writing in The Washington Post, said the Saudi leadership was preparing to revise its Iraq policy to deal with the aftermath of a possible U.S. pullout, . . . . "To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse," Obaid said."To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region," he said.
. . . . Obaid listed three options being considered by the Saudi government:
- providing "Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance," including funding and arms.
- establishing new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias.
- or the Saudi king "may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half ... it would be devastating to Iran ... The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shi'ite militias in Iraq and elsewhere."
Now what do you think Saudi Arabia and other front-line Arab states would do if the U.S. openly supports the Shiite militias in crushing the Sunnis?
They aren't powerless. They could increase their covert aid to the Sunnis to include military aid.
That's really the import of that article. The Saudi government immediately came out and denied that Obaid had authority to speak for them. But, the warning shot was clearly fired across the bow of the Bush administration.
It would be almost impossible politically for the King's government to ignore this problem. Their population might easily revolt if they stood idly by and allowed their co-religionists to be massacred.
As for which of the three options they might use if the U.S. decided to "tilt towards the Shiites" the oil weapon is most likely. They could simply dramatically cut production, causing prices to skyrocket and the U.S. economy to crash.
The oil market right now is so tight that even a moderate decline in Saudi output would be trouble. A cut-off would probably trigger an immediate recession in America.
Even if Bush is too stupid to know it, his handlers are aware of the problem. The Saudis can only be pushed so far. They've swallowed a lot, but this is asking a bit much.
Posted by Cugel at December 2, 2006 01:01 PMEverything's ON TOPIC!! in an open thread, Cugel.
T2, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were a being a "tinfoilhat America hater," as that is not what I was trying to say. My head cold precludes clear morning thought. I was just pointing out that the "msm" is trying to manufacture a new story out of old controversy by titillating the public with another release of the plane-less video. You asked:
Why,why wouldn't the government, keenly aware of the "tin hat" theory that there was no plane, not show the *plane* hitting the building, instead of skipping that and just showing the explosion, an explosion that appears to come from the building. Why not show the plane????
I answered, "because the story would be dead if they showed the plane." I called December a slow news month, because traditionally we're treated to "wars on xmas," Paris and Britney's lack of undies, what to get your spouse for xmas fluff stories, etc. rather than real news. I was cynically thinking that if the gov't released this video now, it's for a purpose, and usually that purpose is to try to distract from something else or control the narrative in a certain way. I meant no offense to you, T2; sorry if my lack of clarification made it seem so!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 2, 2006 01:23 PMimcoyote, I hardly thought you were calling me a tin hat'er. I don't think that it takes a tin hat mentality to severely question the events of 9.11 as they pertain to what really happened, as opposed to what the Bush Admin wants us to believe happened.
Posted by T2 at December 2, 2006 02:09 PMTwo days before he resigned as defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged that the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction.
So Rummy saw a need to change tactics. Well, well, well.
“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/middleeast/03military.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=c81ca1ad895daf65&hp&ex=1165122000&partner=homepage
Posted by Judith at December 2, 2006 03:15 PMYup, Judith, that's why Rummy was canned. He told Georgie "change nuthin' and nuthin' changes and things is lookin' bad in Iraq" and George "Rummy's here for the long haul" Bush canned his ass.
Posted by Sharon at December 2, 2006 03:24 PMI don't think that it takes a tin hat mentality to severely question the events of 9.11
I don't either. My point is that I believe the gov't would rather us argue back and forth about whether a plane actually hit the Pentagon or whether the WTC fell due to a controlled demolition than discuss how truly defenseless our national defense proved to be that day, and is still today. All those billions for "Homeland Security" and Afghanistan and Iraq, for missile systems, and killer satellites, hasn't done a thing to make America safer because it can't. We're too big, too free, and too goddam complacent that surely all that money and rhetoric will keep us safe, 'cos we're better 'n them. And I don't believe the 'pukes or the dems are ready to stand up and tell the voters "You're really as safe as we can make you without throwing away the Constitution." 'Course the Bushies have spent the last six years saying "We'll make you safe," without saying they'll have to shit on the Constitution to do it.
The government knows oversight is coming - it may not be thorough; it may not be all we'd wish - but it's coming. They're trying to discredit any real examination of 9/11 in advance, to try and take the sting out of anything embarassing or criminal that comes out later during investigations. The best way to do that is shine the spotlight on the "9-11 was planned by Bush and the Jews" crowd yet again, then point and jeer. It's an established pattern. My hope is that the dems expose them for the snake oil salesmen they really are, and make them pay, but I'm not counting on it.
Rachel Maddow was talking about this the other day, re the Baker report coming out Wed. They've been leaking bits and pieces of the report over the past two weeks like trial balloons, for mini discussion over the holiday. When the report finally comes out, the media will call it old news and Bush won't have to answer for it, because the pundits have already laid down the talking points and are ready to move on to the next orca attack.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 2, 2006 03:45 PMThe Salvador option is already in place. US military personnel have trained Iraqi government death squads, and the mosque bombing in Samarra last February that kicked the whole thing off was done under US auspices. There is all kinds of documentation on these facts, and Cheney said in a debate with Edwards that he looked at the Salvador option favorably. The fact that the Salvador option didn't really work very well in El Salvador is no reason for the neocons to abandon it--its very immorality is a plus to them.
Posted by Don Bacon at December 2, 2006 06:51 PMTime to request a ceasefire and ask everyone to come to the table and discuss the partition options. The Kurds would be happy to have nothing more to do with the Iraqis. I suspect the Shia and the Sunnis are willing to live apart after the violence of the last year.
Trouble is that Bush said a day or two ago that he wasn't interested in a graceful way out of Iraq. I guess that says it all. This guy has created a huge mess in every business he has been in and eventually somebody pays him to go away. Who needs grace or planning skills with that kind of record?
Posted by angel at December 2, 2006 07:45 PMPartition isn't an option because (1) Iraqis don't really want it and (2) it might solve the problem--and things are fine right now, thank you very much. Bush and his pals are making tons of money, the stock market is at an all time high, we have no time or money for domestic problems and the Dems are still clueless--what's not to like?
Posted by Don Bacon at December 2, 2006 08:22 PMIf Bush and Cheney side with the Iranian-backed Shia in Iraq...well, they'll just be making our soldiers in Iraq the agents of the Iranian government, on par with the Iranian-back Hezbollah agents who flooded into Iraq after Saddam Hussein's ouster.
If Bush and Cheney side with the Iraqi Sunnis, then they'll be siding with the Saudi royal family, also Sunni...which will be strange after Bush and Cheney ousted the Sunnit Baathist, Saddam Hussein, and fired all the Sunni Baathists in the Iraqi government and security forces. (Smart move, huh? Instant insurgency).
Or maybe Bush and Cheney should side only with the Kurds in the north, help them build a pipeline for northern Iraq's oil through Turkey, thus establishing an economic/military/political link between northern Iraq and Turkey...and blow off the Iraqi civil war between the Sunnis and Shias in the rest of Iraq.
U.S. forces could redeploy (bug-out) from central and south Iraq, with part going north into the Kurdish-controlled areas and part going south into Kuwait, ready to rapidly deploy as the need arose to try to stop any genocidal activities on the part of the Sunni and Shia left behind.
Otherwise, screw Iraq and any grandiose dreams Bush and Cheney had for Iraq...and get our troops out of there.
Posted by The Oracle at December 2, 2006 11:45 PMOracle, you described Iraq very well (except we can't side with the Kurds and anger the Turks) and I agree with you that we should leave. But Bush won't leave, the Dems won't make him, the US can't side with anyone in Iraq, so Bush will in effect continue the status quo with all that money flowing to his pals. And we thought that just because he was dumb and unsuccessful he would be a weak president!
Posted by Don Bacon at December 3, 2006 08:45 AM