But again, if they're really so evil and so clever that they could pull something like that off and cover it up, why did they screw the invasion up so badly?
Who says the invasion went badly? For all we know it could be going exactly according to their plan. After all, oil in the ground is oil in the bank. The longer Iraqi oil stays under the ground, the more valuable it becomes to them. It makes more sense to start pumping it out as fast as they can after
the decline is well under way. Faking an incompentent post war strategy to keep things chaotic so oil pipelines are destroyed is the perfect excuse to keep it underground, if that's where they want it.
Why is the oil situation worse than before?
Because of geological factors that they have absolutely no control over.
Why haven't they imposed martial law?
Because the American people wouldn't go for it - yet. One more attack and they very well may.
Why are they honestly frightened of losing the election--couldn't they just rig it?
You're assuming their fear of losing the election is genuine. As far as I'm concerned, all the election coverage currently under way in the mainstream news is nothing but theater. For all we know Bush and Kerry are both playing for the same team and nothing will change under a Kerry presidency. Even the terrible mainstream media points out that Kerry's foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush.
And why didn't they plant WMD's to justify the invasion?
I've often wondered this myself, but maybe they don't need to? Before the invasion even happened, I was amazed to see polls that indicated a majority of Americans felt the war would be justified even if WMDs were never found, even though they were the alleged reason for the invasion in the first place. Besides, in the public's eye Bush is still perceived as being the stronger candidate in terms of handling Iraq, despite all the problems they're having.
I'd like to ask Ruppert the same questions. It seem to me that, at worst, they knew something was up and chose not to act because they thought it would further their agenda, then were suprised when they found out how bad it turned out to be.
Very often I see arguments like yours raised against the case for government involvement in 9/11. "But it just doesn't make any sense" is what it all boils down to. And you know what? You're right. There are a lot of facts that just don't mesh and don't seem to make sense.
So what? We don't live in a rational world. Using your logic there is no way Martha Stewert is guilty of those stock crimes. After all, why would she commit such a crime to save a measly couple million dollars when she stood to lose (and did) so much more? Nevertheless, she was convicted by a jury of her peers because the evidence proved her guilt. Can you imagine if such a defense were successful in a court of law? I could just imagine this scene being played out in pre trial hearings.
LAWYER: Your honor, I move for dismissal. My client is innocent. My client has been an upstanding law abiding citizen all his life. He would never kill his mother, it just doesn't make any sense that my client did this. He loved his mother!
PROSECUTER: You know what? You're right. I never thought of it that way. I never should have indicted him in the first place. It doesn't make any sense that he'd kill his mother. I mean... she was his mother!
JUDGE: Well, I'm still curious as to why he was found holding that smoking gun that did kill her. But you're probably right. It doesn't make any sense to me either. This poor man has suffered enough to be charged with killing his own mother. He'll probably need lots of therapy to recover from the trauma. The $10 million in insurance money ought to cover the therapy bills though. Case dismissed.
Arguements like yours completely ignore the weight of the vast amount of information that points to government involvement in the attacks. There is tons of information that completely flies in the face of the official story of 9/11 and has yet to be explained. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor has said there are literally dozens of smoking guns that prove government involvement in the attacks. The 9/11 Commission conveniently ignored the important questions, and so has the mainstream media. I wont bother to list the facts, they've been mentioned in this forum before. But I encourage you to seek them out on your own. Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon would be an excellent start. If you don't want to buy the book, you can read the archives of his excellent site www.fromthewilderness.com
, or look for other 9/11 Truth sites.
When I first heard the allegation that the US government was behind 9/11, it didn't make sense to me either. I literally laughed out loud and dismissed it completely. Later I just became aware of the individual facts presented by themselves, without making any accusations. The facts alone were enough to sway me. I came to the conclusion myself because it's the only conclusion you can come to once you are aware of all the facts.
Facts about pre 9/11 intelligence, huge anamolies the day of and inconsistencies in the timeline, physical evidence, evidence of the coverup... I didn't even understand WHY they would do such a thing, I just knew that they did. I only came to fully understand the motivations (such as peak oil), and that there is historical precedent for such an event (Hitler and the German parliment) later.
Arm yourself with information. Make yourself aware of the facts and unanswered questions about 9/11 that the mainstream media is completely ignoring. Read books like Crossing the Rubicon and The New Pearl Harbor. Once you've done that, then you can make an informed decision on what you think really happened.