Blessing in Disguise
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who sat in front of cameras and testified to the 9/11 Commission that 9/11 was a "blessing in disguise" because it woke us up, it brought American public opinion around to supporting the War on Terror or something like that?
I know I can be slow sometimes, but a strange thing just dawned on me a few minutes ago. If such a terrorist attack can be looked back on in hindsight and seen as a "blessing in disguise," why couldn't it have also been viewed that way prior to the actual attack? Is it so far-fetched to think that perhaps there were some people in the US government prior to the 9/11 attack who were thinking, "You know, a successful terrorist attack here in the US would actually be a blessing in disguise. It would galvanize public support for military action in the Middle East."?
If Bush administration officials can think that way now, isn't it possible they could have been thinking that way before 9/11 too? But of course, they couldn't admit to it if they were. That would be admitting to treason.
On another topic, I just found this little tidbit on the net:
Leftist: "we support the troops, but don't support the war"
Me:: "yeah, and I'm a Giants fan; I just don't want them to play in the Super Bowl."
(from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=106531)
So, if I read that correctly, the Iraq War is the US military's Super Bowl?????
This is supposed to represent intelligent conservative thought?
OK, and finally for this morning, I came across a website describing a book by Kitty Kelly called The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty. Read this for yourself:
http://euskalherria.indymedia.org/es/2004/09/16830.shtml
Hey, who was it that doesn't like the hat I was wearing in my bio pic, huh? Come out, come out, whoever you are, Anonymous...
I know I can be slow sometimes, but a strange thing just dawned on me a few minutes ago. If such a terrorist attack can be looked back on in hindsight and seen as a "blessing in disguise," why couldn't it have also been viewed that way prior to the actual attack? Is it so far-fetched to think that perhaps there were some people in the US government prior to the 9/11 attack who were thinking, "You know, a successful terrorist attack here in the US would actually be a blessing in disguise. It would galvanize public support for military action in the Middle East."?
If Bush administration officials can think that way now, isn't it possible they could have been thinking that way before 9/11 too? But of course, they couldn't admit to it if they were. That would be admitting to treason.
On another topic, I just found this little tidbit on the net:
Leftist: "we support the troops, but don't support the war"
Me:: "yeah, and I'm a Giants fan; I just don't want them to play in the Super Bowl."
(from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=106531)
So, if I read that correctly, the Iraq War is the US military's Super Bowl?????
This is supposed to represent intelligent conservative thought?
OK, and finally for this morning, I came across a website describing a book by Kitty Kelly called The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty. Read this for yourself:
http://euskalherria.indymedia.org/es/2004/09/16830.shtml
Hey, who was it that doesn't like the hat I was wearing in my bio pic, huh? Come out, come out, whoever you are, Anonymous...
posted by Bill | 8:08 AM
1 Comments:
So now the Bush bashers are latching on to a renowned gossip monger in their rabid attack against the President? It would almost be funny, the lengths to which the anti-Bush crowd will go to discredit him, if it were not so pathetic.
Eric
www.smootherthanbutter.com
Post a Comment
<< Home