Maybe Lee Hamilton is NOT Lying...
...when he says that the US government was NOT involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center. Because neither Larry Silverstein nor Mossad, for example, are part of the US government. Think about it. Hamilton hedges all the time. He says that the 9/11 Commission did a "first draft of history" and that they may not have gotten "everything right". He then always adds something to the effect that "we found no evidence of bombs" (nor did they look) and/or "the US government was not involved in the destruction" (but someone else other than al Qaeda MAY have been!) Let's recall the words of Nietszche:
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
If some people either wittingly or not make the mistake of going around accusing the US government of orchestrating 9/11, as opposed to corrupt elements within it in conjunction with private individuals and foreign agents, then our cause is thus perfidiously harmed, no?
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
I have to disagree, when
I have to disagree, when the US air defence system stood down to let the planes crash into 3 targets without any intercept, that was the US government. Granted that not all members of the government where involved and maybe even some of those involved did not know that they were.Â
good point juan
but I still think the point stands--Le Hamilton can still think he is not lying when he says the government was not involved if it was a few "bad apples" who just happened to schedule a bunch of war game exercises for that day that "confused" the response. I've just heard too many times people say "you think the GOVERNMENT would do this?" That suggests that it was a matter of official US policy, which I simply think is false.
Look at it this way--most of Congress would have had no clue what was going down, and yet they have been instrumental in the cover-up. So they are of course guilty in some sense but not of actually making it happen. Likewise just because two planes happen to have been flown into the WTC does not mean that they were put in the air as an official act of the military. For all we know those planes took off from a field in New Jersey and the alleged flight paths are just part of the exercises that day--we just don't know for a fact that it would have been possible to stop them. Does this mean stand down or sabotage? There is a difference. One is an official decision, the other is the work of saboteurs on the inside, who just had to give the wrong order at the right time to ensure failure.
Don't get me wrong in all of this--the US government has a LOT to answer for, and there is no question that as a body it is guilty of a lot. But to get to the bottom of 9/11 we should be careful not to presume more than we can about the day's events. Once the public understands that something went terribly wrong on 9/11, worse than what they were originally led to believe, then they will be equipped, not least of which psychologically, to hold the right people accountable for the right failures/crimes--including but not exclusively those in the government at the time.
My original point was mostly about how to use language when confronting a guy like Hamilton who is well-versed in the "definition of 'is'" school of parsing and plausible deniability...Â
-G
ok G, got your point :)
ok G, got your point :)