 |
Add to My Group
9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda
By Jim Fetzer (about the author) Page 1 of 7 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Jim Fetzer - Writer Abstract. During a “Freedom Rally” in recognition of Ron Paul, (R-TX) and in opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth explained why the anti-war movement and the 9/11 truth movement should be more closely linked, since exposing the truth about 9/11 destroys the justification for those wars. While a clip of a part of his presentation has been posted on YouTube, here is a summation (with corrections) of his remarks in Washington, D.C., 15 April 2008. When it comes to 9/11, however, Ron Paul himself, alas!, doesn’t have a clue. 
We cannot support the troops by “staying the course” when the Commander-in-Chief is marching them over a cliff.
—Jim Fetzer (15 April 2008)
I speak in praise of Ron Paul, who believes in the Constitution and in ending these illegal and immoral wars, which the Bush administration obviously does not.
There is a crucial link between the anti-war movement and the 9/11 truth movement, because exposing the truth about 9/11 destroys the justification for those wars.
We are told not to discuss conspiracy theories, but if 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four planes, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy off in a cave in Afghanistan, then 9/11 involved a conspiracy.
If we can’t talk about conspiracies, we can’t talk about 9/11. Why would this administration want to suppress public discussion of 9/11? To conceal the truth about the war or to conceal the truth about 9/11?
Lies about the War
We were told big lies about the war, including, first, that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But during a press conference, Bush himself had to admit that Saddam had “nothing” to do with 9/11.
We were told, second, that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda. But several investigations have revealed that not only was Saddam not in cahoots with al Qaeda, but he was actively tracking down its leaders to incarcerate or even kill them.
Moreover, honest generals have told us al Qaeda is not responsible for more than 10% of the opposition to US presence in Iraq and that our presence there is the greatest recruiting tool al Qaeda possesses.
In fact, an admiral—who may face imminent demotion—was quoted in The New York Times (11 April 2008) observing that no more than 40-50 foreign fighters were entering the country each month. How great a threat can that represent?
Political hacks tell us differently. Compare what General William Odom, who is retired, has said, with the words of General David Petraeus, who is not.
Third, we were told that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But our FBI—our own FBI!—has acknowledged that it has “no hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11.
You thought there was “a confession tape”? But in his first video, which is the only one that appears to be authentic, Osama said that he had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the killing of innocent women and children is contrary to the tenets of Islam.
He said that he opposed the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina—the two most holy sites in Islam—and our one-sided stance regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
by Timothy Green Beckley
$24.00
Lowest New Price $18.98
Number of pages: 190
Publisher: Conspiracy Journal
| 36 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
