Balls and Walnuts
more than you ever wanted to know
Frank Rich behind the firewall: It’s Too Late for United 93
When is Rich scheduled to show up on Colbert? That’s what I want to know. I’m dying to hear Rich’s response to Stephen Colbert’s trademark question, “Sir, why do you hate America?” — which Colbert only asks of true patriots.
B12 Partners Solipsism has posted Frank Rich’s op-ed column in full. Here’s a teaser:
Thanks to the administration’s deliberate post-9/11 decision to make the enemy who attacked us interchangeable with the secular fascists of Iraq who did not, the original war on terrorism has been diluted in its execution and robbed of its support from the American public. Brian Williams seemed to be hinting as much when, in effusively editorializing about “United 93†on NBC (a sister company of Universal), he suggested that “it just may be a badly needed reminder for some that we are a nation at war because of what happened in New York and Washington and in this case in a field in Pennsylvania.†But he stopped short of specifying exactly what war he meant, and that’s symptomatic of our confusion. When Americans think about war now, they don’t think about the war prompted by what happened on 9/11 so much as the war in Iraq, and when they think about Iraq, they don’t say, “Let’s roll!,†they say, “Let’s leave!â€
The administration’s blurring of the distinction between Al Qaeda and Saddam threatens to throw out the baby that must survive, the war against Islamic terrorists, with the Iraqi quagmire. Last fall a Pew Research Center survey found that Iraq had driven isolationist sentiment in the United States to its post-Vietnam 1970’s high. In a CBS News poll released last week, the percentage of Americans who name terrorism as the nation’s “most important problem†fell to three. Every day we spend in Iraq erodes the war against those who attacked us on 9/11.
Rich also shines a light on the muddled administration, the soon-to-be-lost victory in Afghanistan, and the Moussaoui circus sideshow. It’s a fine accompaniment to your morning coffee and scone.
While you’re in the mood, Jurassic Pork breaks the firewall for your required dose of Maureen Dowd (Poker, Hookers, and Spooks), wherein she skewers the Goss-and-Gosling CIA melodrama. Enjoy.
D.
I’ve been watching Loose Change today, trying to understand HOW the HELL anyone can claim a plane hit the Pentagon.
Amazing.
http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=0&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=16&epi=102&typ=0&form=1
Dammit, Sam, I can’t get the video to play. I smell conspiracy 😉
Okay, got this one to work, am about to watch . . .
What did you think?
I have to admit I’m really really interested in having the gov. release the tapes they confiscated of the plane hitting the pentagon, but as they’ve had five years to doctor them…
Mighty creepy. One thing that makes me disbelieve it, though: can you imagine that big of a conspiracy remaining under wraps for so long? Someone would talk.
Well, I was listening to a radio talk show, and these guys were explaining a bit about what they believe, and one was in the army. He said, ‘you get orders, you execute them, and you never see the bigger picture.’ Plus, there are a lot of people out there who can keep secrets. You’d be surprised – and a little pressure in the right places can go a long way.
I don’t buy the conspiracy theories, particularly with respect to the Pentagon. Occam’s Razor applies here. As it sits, there are two possible explanations:
1. Islamic radicals hijacked 4 planes. Three hit their targets, and one crashed into a field.
2. Islamic radicals hijacked 3 planes. At the same time (some weird, convoluted mysterious thing) happened, and a bomb/missile/ultra-secret-weapon hit the Pentagon.
I know which one I consider more reasonable.
Did you at least watch the movie before deciding that’s what you wanted to believe?
Sam, I found the movie to be fairly convincing. I’d like to know if someone can rebut the points this guy makes.
From the start, I found it exceptionally hard to believe that the towers could fall the way they fell. It looked way too much like a planned demolition.
I’m going to go over to Kos and see if there has been any discussion there.
FWIW, here’s a link to a Wikipedia article rebutting some of Loose Change’s claims.
I checked Kos — couldn’t find anything there discussing the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
It’s probably all hot air, (lol) but it would be nice if our wonderful government would take the time to answer some questions clearly for once…
Oh – here’s a neat article:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Did you at least watch the movie before deciding that’s what you wanted to believe?
I watched a movie. Don’t know if it’s that one or another one, but I also spent some time some months ago reading the website of the guy who claims that the Pentagon couldn’t have been hit by an aircraft.
Maybe I’m biased. Maybe I’m too skeptical. Thing is, I’ve seen a lot of conspiracy theories. Oklahoma City, Waco… and these websites/papers/movies debunking the official line pretty much always work the same way. They take small details and attempt to prove that it couldn’t have happened that way. The argument seems to be that if those details couldn’t have happened, then the whole thing couldn’t have happened.
In the case of the 9/11 attacks, you wind up with all kinds of problems if you divert far from the Al Queda hypothesis. What about 93? Was it therefore staged? The twin towers? Thousands of people saw those planes hit the towers with their own eyes. Dozens of video tapes of the collapse exist. Hundreds of experts have said that the collapse is entirely consistent with the building design and type of failure that occurred.
Were they ALL in on the conspiracy? Or, applying Occam’s Razor, did some religious fanatics prepare for years and get just a little lucky?
I’ll watch the video this evening if I remember, but having been through (as I said) claims on Waco and Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City and a few others, I am skeptical.
Dean, no one is denying that the planes hit the towers. Folks are wondering how a fire that high up could create a collapse so similar to a controlled demolition, and how one could end up with red-hot steel in the basement weeks later. Here’s the implication: the government wanted those towers to come down for the symbolic value, and had appropriate charges in place to do so.
Honestly, though, why go to the trouble? Wouldn’t the sight of planes crashing into the towers and the resulting inferno be enough to galvanize public opinion? Unless the video is right, and the whole thing was a dodge to facilitate the theft of hundreds of billions in gold.
Me, I blame the little gray men and their anal probes.
[…] Numbers two and three: meh, not so interesting. One woman sucker punches another at an airport (2), and a student reenacts the first level from Super Mario Brothers for a college talent show (3). Number four is the Loose Change video, which we discussed here in the comments not long ago. Loose Change also takes the number twelve spot. […]