The Joy of Politics

[Lefty]

GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline

Capitol Hill Blue/DOUG THOMPSON | November 12 2005

Comment: This document adds to the mountanous pile of smoking gun evidence of government complicity in staged terror attacks and other false flag operations. It has now been declassified, as we already knew, that the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. It was staged to get us into Vietnam.
Operation Northwoods was the official US government plan to carry out 9/11 style attacks against the American people and blame it on foreign enemies as a pretext for war.

--------------------------------------------------

A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

GOP insiders who have seen the memo admit it’s a risky strategy and point out that such scenarios are “blue sky thinking” that often occurs in political planning sessions.

“The President’s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,” admits one aide. “Americans band together at a time of crisis.”

Other Republicans, however, worry that such a scenario carries high risk, pointing out that an attack might suggest the President has not done enough to protect the country.

“We also have to face the fact that many Americans no longer trust the President,” says a longtime GOP strategist. “That makes it harder for him to become a rallying point.”

The memo outlines other scenarios, including:

--Capture of Osama bin Laden (or proof that he is dead);

--A drastic turnaround in the economy;

--A "successful resolution" of the Iraq war.

GOP memos no longer talk of “victory” in Iraq but use the term “successful resolution.”

“A successful resolution would be us getting out intact and civil war not breaking out until after the midterm elections,” says one insider.

The memo circulates as Tuesday’s disastrous election defeats have left an already dysfunctional White House in chaos, West Wing insiders say, with shouting matches commonplace and the blame game escalating into open warfare.

“This place is like a high-school football locker room after the team lost the big game,” grumbles one Bush administration aide. “Everybody’s pissed and pointing the finger at blame at everybody else.”

Republican gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey deepened rifts between the Bush administration and Republicans who find the President radioactive. Arguments over whether or not the President should make a last-minute appearance in Virginia to try and help the sagging campaign fortunes of GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore raged until the minute Bush arrived at the rally in Richmond Monday night.

“Cooler heads tried to prevail,” one aide says. “Most knew an appearance by the President would hurt Kilgore rather than help him but (Karl) Rove rammed it through, convincing Bush that he had enough popularity left to make a difference.”

Bush didn’t have any popularity left. Overnight tracking polls showed Kilgore dropped three percentage points after the President’s appearance and Democrat Tim Kaine won on Tuesday.

Conservative Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum told radio talk show host Don Imus Wednesday that he does not want the President's help and will stay away from a Bush rally in his state on Friday.

The losses in Virginia and New Jersey, coupled with a resounding defeat of ballot initiatives backed by GOP governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California have set off alarm klaxons throughout the demoralized Republican party. Pollsters privately tell GOP leaders that unless they stop the slide they could easily lose control of the House in the 2006 midterm elections and may lose the Senate as well.

“In 30 years of sampling public opinion, I’ve never seen such a freefall in public support,” admits one GOP pollster.

Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the usual tricks tried by Republicans no longer work.

"None of their old tricks worked," he says.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) admits the GOP is a party mired in its rural base in a country that's becoming less and less rural.

"You play to your rural base, you pay a price," he says. "Our issues blew up in our face."

As Republican political strategists scramble to find a message – any message – that will ring true with voters, GOP leaders in Congress admit privately that control of their party by right-wing extremists makes their recovery all but impossible.

“We’ve made our bed with these people,” admits an aide to House Speaker Denny Hastert. “Now it’s the morning after and the hangover hurts like hell.”

[mwillis71]

Nice article Lefty! I am not sure what your stance is on this article because it doesn't look like you put one, but if my feelings are correct than we might actually agree on something. SSSHHHHH, don't tell anybody!

[Lefty]

Hey man, we're cool. Everyone bangs in this forum. Sorry for that comment about your wife, my point was isn't it easier to do it illegally and thats why soo many do? I also don't get why, if she married you, a green card wasn't pretty easy? Six languages is heavy, I've got English down pretty well and limited Spanish but am language impaired.
By the way, what the hell is a camel spider?
I am against the current political reign totally with rare exception.

[Hippie3]

for the record
we were already in vietnam,
had been for years
prior to the gulf of tonkin resolution.
this operation northwoods you mention
but never document-
prove it existed plz.

[Lefty]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

I don't like the Hitler parallel in this one, but I didn't write it...

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [includes cover memoranda], March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp.
Operation Northwoods And
The Reichstag Fire
By Bill Molson
Online Journal Contributing Writer
5-5-2

Operation Northwoods

Could the United States government conceive of carrying out attacks against the American people under the pretext that the attacks came from a foreign enemy? We have to look back only 40 years to find that the answer is yes.

The plan was called Operation Northwoods and it called for engaging in such unsavory activities as assassination, hijacking airplanes, blowing up ships, orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities, and even blowing up John Glenn's space capsule, while pinning the blame on Fidel Castro. This would whip up necessary public support for a full-scale invasion of Cuba, which the military believed was necessary. These details are revealed in a book entitled Body of Secrets, a book about the National Security Agency, by James Bamford.

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," wrote the military, and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

This was not a "rogue" operation, or loners acting outside the government. These plans were devised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in 1962. The Kennedy administration rejected the plan, but pretext operations would continue to be drawn up as late as 1963. Among these were to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so the U.S. could intervene, and paying someone in Castro's government to attack Guantanamo Bay.

The author, in an interview with ABC news, said, "The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but nobody else wants."

It should be noted that it was the objections of Robert McNamara, and his revelation of the plot to Kennedy which prevented this operation from occurring. It was Kennedy McNamara and who rejected the nuclear first strike option during the Cuban Missile crisis and negotiated a peaceful resolution, saving the world from annihilation. These were the so-called "leftists"óelements which no longer exist in the executive branch today (either of them). In fact, if there is a conspiracy, it is likely originating from the executive branch.

Then there is the Kennedy assassination itself, which has been examined with exhausting detail over the years, revealing that there were almost certainly conspiratorial elements behind the assassination. This tenet has received widespread acceptance by the public.

Yet despite this, nothing definitive has been brought to light to indict any of the conspirators to this day.

The Rise of Hitler

It may be considered crass by some to compare the rise of the current administration to that of Hitler's regime. While no accusations are being made, only the surface historical similarities between those events and now are being considered as merely a cautionary note, and a proof that sometimes a path, once started, leads to an unforeseen conclusion.

There was a great fear in the capitals of Europe at the time from the threat of Communism. Towards the end of World War I, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia toppled the Czar and installed a totalitarian dictatorship. Russia's strategic position and military might were a matter of grave concern. It was felt that the threat of Communism could spread like a virus to all of Europe. It was especially a concern in Russia's perennial enemy Germany, which was plagued by unemployment and labor unrest, and whose currency had become nearly worthless.

In 1933, through a series of backroom deals and political intrigues, Adolf Hitler became the chancellor of a bankrupt, chaotic and divided Germany on the verge of Civil War.

Hitler convinced German President Hindenburg to hold new elections on March 5 of that year, and Hitler believed the Nazi party would gain control of the legislature. The Nazis controlled the courts, and had the backing of the major industrial powers and bankers, who believed Hitler would be "good for business." They blanketed the nation with propaganda from all media outlets.

Then in late February, shortly before the elections, the German parliament building, the Reichstag, was set ablaze by an arsonist.

The arson was blamed on a 24-year-old Dutch Communist named Marianus Van Der Lubbe. He allegedly confessed to the crime and was quickly tried and executed.

The Nazis used the public fear of the Communists to establish their dictatorship. Just as today, the opposition parties were cowed into silence in the face of an external threat. Hitler grabbed more and more power. An emergency decree was passed the very next day that stated:

"Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

Similar to today's ongoing and never-ending terror alerts, frenzied news reports of Communist plots continued to circulate in the press. The Nazis vowed to prove the fire was part of a vast Communist plot to take over Germany. Their propaganda emphasized that only they could control the threat to the nation. Despite this effort, they won only 40 percent of the legislature.

As with Bush, Hitler faced increasingly vocal concern about his measures, and an opposition party controlling the legislature. His tactic was to get an enabling act passed, giving him essentially dictatorial powers and rendering the legislature irrelevant.

On March 23, the newly elected Reichstag met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act. It was officially called the "Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich." If passed, it would in effect vote democracy out of existence in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

Just as today, the public was assured that the sweeping new emergency powers would never be used unjustly against its own citizens. In a speech before the deciding vote, Hitler told the lawmakers, "The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures . . . The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one."

And, much like today, Hitler pledged to end the chronic unemployment facing his country, and to promote peace, not war, with Germany's enemies: Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union.

The vote was takenó441 for, and only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis could now control the German political process and declare war at any time, against any foe, without the legislature. Far from aghast, much of the German public would support Hitler and the Nazis through 1945, by which time Germany would be reduced to rubble.

After the war, evidence led historians to concur that the Reichstag fire that the Nazis used so successfully to gain political power was, in fact, planned by the Nazis themselves for that end. Although there is no consensus, a new book published in Germany in 2001 that reexamined all the court evidence (Der ReichstagbrandñWie Geschichte gemacht wird: The Reichstag FireñHow History is Created ), makes a clear and convincing case that the Nazis themselves aided and abetted Van der Lubbe's torching of the Reichstag.

It should be clear from the above that there was no widespread feeling in Germany that it was becoming a dictatorship. Opposition forces were silenced by propaganda and public ostracism. Dissenters were tried in secret and killed, or sent to the camps. No one knew the true motives behind the Nazi party. Money and propaganda were the tools the Nazis used to devastating effect.

People believe that our great nation, which has always been on the right side of history, will never walk that insidious path. But this is more a matter of faith then of fact. Ever since that dark period, historians, writers and philosophers have wrestled with the agonizing question: "How did it happen," and more importantly, "Could it happen again?" We should be asking, "Could it happen here?"

The Scenario

We now know that the military has planned terrorist operations against Americans as a pretext for war. To deny that a 9ñ11 conspiracy is even possible is, quite simply, to deny history.

What if this time, the plans were carried out? Furthermore, given the after effects, what if this is part of a larger plan to dismantle American democracy? One more catastrophic event, and the U.S. could easily become a dictatorship.

Extreme? Perhaps. But consider the facts:

* Consider the fact that the anthrax attacks were almost certainly designed to foment war with Iraq, and that the anthrax itself came from U.S. government labs.

* Consider the fact that stock bets were made with insider knowledge of the attacks, and placed at a bank formerly run by the CIA chief.

* Consider the fact that the U.S. was planning to attack Afghanistan as early as July.

* Consider the fact that the U.S. apparently rewarded, and then threatened the Taliban after Bush took office.

* Consider the fact that the shadow government was activated shortly after the attacks and kept a secret. * Consider the fact that the Office of Homeland Security is working on emergency plans involving martial law.

* Consider the fact that the government can now legally spy on Americans much more easily and without constitutional and legal roadblocks.

* Consider the fact that the president can define terrorism, and that the attorney general can choose what groups are considered "terrorists" without legal oversight.

* Consider the Pentagon planning an office to propagandize noncombatants.

* Consider the fact that Bush's policies now receive unthinking support from the public, even though he received fewer votes than his opponent in the election.

* Consider the numerous government figures that have said that the "war" will not end in our lifetime.

* Consider the fact that both Bush and Cheney asked Congress to back off the 9ñ11 investigations.

* Consider the fact that Afghanistan is a major prize for the oil industry, and Bush's government is largely oil executives backed by large energy concerns.

* Consider that the Iran-Contra conspirators drew up plans to declare martial law and suspend the Constitution, and that some of these men are now back in power.

* Consider that two of the hijackers were wanted by the CIA, and that nine of the hijackers were selected for security screenings but were allowed to board their flights.

* Consider that terrorism investigators were told to back off investigating the Saudis and Osama bin Laden's siblings.

* Consider the fact that bin Laden's siblings lived close to CIA headquarters, and near a place listed by four hijackers as their address, and that they were allowed to leave the country while thousands of other Muslims were rounded up.

* Consider that former president Bush is a known friend of the bin Laden family, and works for a company that had the bin Ladin Group as an investor, a company which now stands to make billions from the war.

If we can spend $70 million to investigate the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas, isn't there enough evidence to warrant an investigation into these 9ñ11 connections, especially considering the gravity of what we're facing?

If we accept the fact that government agents can mail deadly anthrax to our citizens, as we must at this point, why couldn't they be capable of at least permitting an attack for their own benefit?

What if the former Iran/Contra conspirators decided to take a page from Hitler's playbook and manufacture a crisis? Moreover, a crisis that would give them unquestioning public support and make them very, very rich?

If this is true, these same forces could be conspiring to permit or unleash another, perhaps more horrible, attack on the American people if their hold on power is threatened.

Please don't take my word for it. Make up your own mind, don't let the government or press make it for you. I'm not a journalist. I don't have insider knowledge. I'm just a concerned citizen with a modem who is worried about what is happening to our country. I've included every reference and source I used at the end of every article. I've intentionally relied on well-known respectable news sources. Most of these are available online. Please, please, please, go check them out yourself, and don't let your political or patriotic feelings get in the way. Remember, American democracy and freedom are greater than any president or administration. We are still free. Only we can make sure it stays that way.

Sources:

Details of Operation Northwoods http: //abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

The Rise of Adolf Hitler http://www.historypla ce.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/


http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special...molson043002.h tml

[Hippie3]

lol
that's a joke
hitler's attack on the reichstag
in no way proves that america's military ever did similar here.
that's just re-cycled conspiracy theory,
not a shred of evidence to be seen,
just speculation and conjecture.
where did you find it,
weakly world news or the national enquirer ?

[Lefty]

Well, let me try again...http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/news/...northwoods.pdf

There it is, some of it's crap quality but there is the document in question.

[Hippie3]

explain who bin laden is,
this theory seems to require us to believe that bin laden and al qaeda are actually american puppets
also i suppose this would also mean we were behind the attacks in bali
and madrid and london.

[Hippie3]

how would such a document become un-classified ?
in 1962
the democrats were running the country,
which would mean
if true
this document would prove
that the democratic party
was guilty of treason.
is that your belief ?
so that would pretty much rule out
returning the dems to power again, eh ?

[mindovermycelia]

we'll see who's laughing when the republicrats take complete control

[Lefty]

Nixon was a republican, proud legacy he left, huh? Treason indeed.
Whats up w/the Democrat bias? Do you just not like them?
Personally I believe the line of treason is encroached upon progressively and will be until a united front rises up & physically says "Fuck that!" The Patriot Act I feel is the latest offense but there is sooo much that purposely isn't made public until it's way too late. The interpretation of documents written hundreds of years ago to further political ends today is sickening and both sides are guilty. Funny how government actions are soo easily covered by a new bill or whatever (usually added on to something totally unrelated but is pushed through due to an idea thats good but it's like a sacrifice fly situation that I would like to see stopped) but civilian actions are further and further limited by the exact same thing.

[mwillis71]

No hard feelings Lefty, you are worthy opponent (LOL). I see much logic in your thinking and am certain we are more alike than we think. Sorry for the name calling to brotha.

A common misconception is that if a foreigner marries an American citizen that it makes immigration easier. This is completely false. The only thing it does is give them a reason to come here instead of just wanting a better life. The process is still the same and they even put you on a 2 year probation period to make sure that you didn't just get married to get someone into the country. It is kind of humiliating in a way but necessary.

Do a google on Camel Spiders. They are the nastiest thing you will ever see. They had a habit of attacking troops in the desert by eating their flesh when they slept. They are somewhat like a spider/scorpion mix that injects a numbing agent into its prey in order to devour their flesh. I have had a few of those bad boys living under my cot! They have pics if you google it.

[Hippie3]

you did not answer who bin laden is,
if america attacked itself.

and you are the one giving documents
that implicate the democrats in a treasonous plot
to attack their own nation, to foment war with cuba.

nixon was not in charge in 1962,
kennedy was.

so where am i being biased
if i see the implications of
the documents you provide ?

[Lefty]

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Seems his family is good friends of the current administration, as evident by the families' assisted flight after 9/11, and the pics of Bush meeting with the various representatives that I can supply.
I didn't say your are biased due to the specific documents I linked to, I meant in general toward the Democratic party. You could split hairs off a fly, and could frustrate a priest but are great for it all.

[mwillis71]

Originally Posted by lefty

The Patriot Act I feel is the latest offense but there is sooo much that purposely isn't made public until it's way too late.

Well said Lefty!

[Hippie3]

no civilized nation on earth
judges a man's entire family
for the crimes
of its' sons.

your willingness to go after bin laden's family
themselves innocent of any crime other than
sharing a name
demonstrates rather convincingly
that justice is not your primary interest at all.

but still
an fbi wanted posted
hardly explains who this bin laden is,
is he a puppet of america ?

that's your implication,
that he serves bush.

i find that very hard to believe,
how could he fool all of his associates,
people he's known and lived with for years,
living a double life as both a mujahadeen
and a CIA agent ??
or do you claim that al qaeda too
is serving bush ????
else why would they help bush
perpetrate this fraud ?

[Hippie3]

Consider the fact that the anthrax attacks were almost certainly designed to foment war with Iraq

nonsense, even from the very beginning
the government stated that the attack was likely carried out by an american scientist, one stephen hatfill.
see
http://www.answers.com/topic/2001-anthrax-attacks

[Lefty]

Not blaming "the Sins of our Fathers" (as written by Turow, "One L" was bitchin') but find it odd Bush senior had his plane grounded while the Bin Laden family were free to fly out on a specially arranged flight. The only plane in the air at the time, which I find odd.
Bin Laden was a puppet very much by galvanizing a nation behind a president few accepted, on that basis he was very effective. Back to the Northwoods implications...

[Hippie3]

so then
bin laden must know that he did not attack the world trade center,
he must know that someone else was behind it.
but then, why does he say he did it ?
why does he help bush ?

the northwoods project, if it really existed,
something bad photocopies does not prove,
implicates the democrats in treason,
not the republicans.

so really seeing that the 9/11 attacks took place
only 9 months after bush's inaugeration
but we know was being planned for several years prior,
during the clinton years,
then therefore
the logical conclusion seems to me to be that
9-11 was likely a democratic plot,
but their loss in florida upset their plans.
that might well explain why they got so upset eh ?
their man gore was supposed to win,
so they could be in office and reap the benefits
of the attack themselves.
but bush screwed up their plans by stealing their election.
hmm, maybe you are right, lefty.
maybe so.
that at least might explain why bin laden took the credit,
he's trying to protect his democrat masters,
proly kennedy
since it was a kennedy behind this northwoods project as well.
same last name, just like the bin ladens eh ?

[l33t]

questioning the validity of proof for a viewpoint you don't believe shouldn't be
done without questioning the proof of a view that you believe to be true.

photocopies are bad, but this document can be obtained by anyone who fills out a
FOIA request

the videos of bin laden talking about 9-11 are very sketchy
I do special effects for film, and trust me, you can do anything even
with a personal computer, let alone a nice setup.

I think you guys just gave me an idea

[Lefty]

Bin Laden didn't attack the WTC, those in the planes died, right? Presidents aren't responsible for every act of government, or are they? But they should be held accountable for the acts they are directly behind. I don't think the plan of killing thousands was an attempt to help Bush even if it worked out that way.
Planning is one thing, time of execution is another. Maybe if Bush wasn't such a prick it wouldn't have happened. Oh, thats right, they tried to kill his daddy. Valid reason to cost thousands of lives, right? The whole WMD thing, he was told different by reliable sources & lied knowingly to the American public. You don't think thats jacked?
Northwoods was a concept, possibly acted on later, like maybe lately? Hey, I'm not throwing conspiracy theories out you'll crush, you asked to show docs of Northwoods, there it is.
I'm not tied to a party, I think Gore would have reacted totally different to all this, as would have Kerry. Maybe it wouldn't be as fucked up, maybe it would be worse, but it's pretty screwed as we speak so the blame falls where it belongs. But neither would have daddies' boys as puppet master & maybe free thinking individuals would have interpreted data & acted on it differently. Or maybe they'd have choked on a pretzel...

[Hippie3]

the attack would have happened even if bush had lost and gore had won,
had nothing at all to do with bush being a prick.

saddam tried to kill an ex-president and that is cause for war,
the fact that it was bush's dad does not make it ok,
it would still be a cause for war had it been clinton's daddy.

and several investigations on both sides of the political aisle
have uncovered no hard evidence
that bush lied or 'manipulated' the intelligence.
further it's perfectly obvious that it was beyond bush's power
to manipulate british, french, german, russian, and UN intelligence which all agreed that saddam did have WMD.
the clinton administration believed the same intelligence as well.

what bush did
was what he was asked to do-
make the case for war.
he did so by presenting a worst-case scenario,
and that was his duty,
esp. in the aftermath of 9/11.
america was demanding action,
and as commander-in-chief of the armed forces
bush did his job, he made a case for war.

it was congress that had the job of deciding
if the case that bush laid out
was sufficient.
and it was congress that authorized bush to use force,
they wrote him a blank check, told him to use his own discretion.
bush decided that the risk was too great to further delay action.
at worst all he is guilty of is a lack of good judgement.

if the democrats really had any evidence
they'd whip it out and get the impeachment started
but they don't.
even their little fishing expedition over the CIA leak
left them empty-handed, the big fish- rove and cheney and bush- all got away.
they only got libby for fibbing to the grand jury,
and have not even convicted him of that yet.
plenty of sound and fury
but in the end
much ado about nothing.

[l33t]

I agree that they'll never "get" bush or any of the other big dogs..

they have more than enough meat to feed to the wolves

I think this is more about realising that governments don't give two shits
about their citizens, what they do care about is maintaining the facade that
they do while making a ton of cash in the process.

[pskovinsky]

If one slightly changes the person/group we're talking about being behind everything, it voids most of hip's arguements, and the conspiracy theories looking better then even.

Change "Bush" and "Republicans" to "Those In Power", and "The Elite Few".

Then it makes perfect sense that a plane crash plan was planned during a democratic dominated time, and carried out during a republican time.
They're all the same damn people when you get down to it, the really, really, really rich.

To the defense of the Nazi's, nobody proved that hitler ordered the reichstag fire either, it's stamped on him with the same sort of "evidence" that people are trying to use to stamp "9/11" on Bush's head (or "Those In Power"'s heads, if you prefer).
The main bit of evidence is that it happened at a perfect time, and hitler was ready with his Enabling Acts.
That same evidence fits with 9/11 and the Patriot Act. It was getting to be about time to stir things up a bit, and the Patriot Act was written damn quickly.
Bullshit evidence? Probably, but as long as we're going to drag dead germans into, lets at least be fair.

[Hippie3]

you could equally easily change the names
to 'bugs from outer space'
and the conspiracy theory would still
make as much sense as it does now,
which is zero.

your theory still doesn't explain the roles of bin laden and al qaeda