XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.curre
t-events.wtc.bush-knew
From: patricia251.catlitter@centurytel.net
wrote
| "Pat" wrote:
|
| >
| >"Shill #312" wrote
| >
| >| Oh... and FAITH. "You must have Faith!" You must not question the Faith
as
| >it is
| >| handed down to you from on high. Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Clifford
| >Carnicom,
| >| Jeff Rense... These are the Prophets of the faith. Their word must not
be
| >| questioned! Their word must be taken on FAITH!
| >
| >Faith implies a strong desire to believe in something. So you seem to be
| >suggesting that anyone who is willing to think for themselves (as I have
| >heard Alex Jones urge listeners - repeatedly - to do on his radio show)
and
| >question the Official Conspiracy Theory, rather than accepting it on
FAITH,
| >*wants* to believe that the 9-11 was an inside job. I don't think anyone
who
| >believes that it was an inside job wants to believe it.
|
| Yet you (and they) do so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
| contrary. And you (and the rest of the conspiracy wacko crowd) cannot
| produce the first piece of hard evidence to support your beliefs. If
| that's not an example of faith, one has to wonder what would qualify.
I haven't seen any of this "overwhelming evidence to the contrary". And I am
not part of any crowd. Never have been, either.
Evidence of motive is important in any criminal investigation. The truth
about the unsavory connections of the Bush family must be considered in the
light of all the rest. I don't live anywhere near the National Archives nor
am I able to travel there. Maybe you can make the trip and see the documents
uncovered by John Buchanan for yourself instead of insisting that someone
"produce" them for you
Here's a quote from John Sugg of Atlanta:
Buchanan thought for sure the mainstream media would pounce on his
breakthrough reporting. What he found -- from his hometown Miami Herald,
from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the networks and the rest of
the mainstream press -- was a scared and panicky rebuff at the very idea of
insulting the Bush clan.
The Associated Press decided to send one of its Washington reporters,
Jonathan Salant (full disclosure: I hired Salant at the Herald ages ago), to
check out the National Archives documents. "He had made a solid discovery,"
Salant says. "We didn't agree with all of his interpretations, but enough
that we gave him credit in our story."
In news databases, an interesting pattern arises out of Salant's story.
Well, more precisely, there's no pattern. The mainstream press ran for
cover. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution posted the story on its website, but
you won't find it in the newspaper's archives. Around the world, newspapers
gave the AP story great play -- but not in the United States.
The media don't want to delve into Bush's dark secrets. Example: This
summer, before Buchanan unearthed the Bush-Nazi documents, Newsweek's Polish
edition published that Union Bank "acquired from the Nazi industrialist
Fritz Thyssen the Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation, where prisoners
from Auschwitz worked." You'd think that with the Republicans making a big
play for Jewish voters, such a tidbit would have been worthy of the American
edition of Newsweek. Nope.
Indeed, there was a full-blown media blitzkrieg to bury the outbreaks of the
Bush-Nazi story and those who wanted to tell it. That has happened before.
Allen Dulles -- who would later be the first CIA boss -- was the lawyer who
helped squelch the "trading with the enemy" story in the 1940s and 1950s.
The one time the Bush family was embarrassed by its fascist frolicking was
when Prescott Bush first ran for the Senate in 1950. He lost, by a
razor-thin 1,000 votes, after the word got out about the Bush family's long
involvement in "eugenics," which due to its linchpin role in Nazi theology
(as well as its practical application, genocide), was hardly popular in
post-war America. The eugenics angle was suppressed in future reporting
about Prescott Bush, and he subsequently won a Senate seat.
In recent weeks, pundits have attacked those investigating the Nazi story.
The neocon bible National Review attempted to savage Drobny. An article by
Byron York called the investor a "dark angel," and said Drobny had garnered
his views on the Bush-Nazi connection from a book written by followers of
political cultist Lyndon LaRouche (George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography
by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin). What York doesn't examine is that
Tarpley and Chaitkin based their book on documentary evidence that, as
attested to by Buchanan's discoveries, is solid.
Even more disturbing was a column last week by progressive icon Joe Conason
in the New York Observer. Conason pooh-poohs lambasting Bush for his
forebears' Nazi ties, and notes that Prescott Bush "distinguished himself as
an opponent of McCarthyism." Well, not quite. As the Boston Globe reported
two years ago, Prescott "Bush was reluctant to brush off (Sen. Joe)
McCarthy" until it was politically expedient. McCarthy actually campaigned
for Bush.
For Conason, the goal for liberals is to be more polite than the right. For
others, such as Steven Fowle, editor of the New Hampshire Gazette, what
matters is "this is a story that has been consistently buried and ignored
for 60 years."
More important is that the Bush clan exhibits a consistency of behavior,
selection of business partners, and willingness to trade out America's
interests so that family and friends can profit. That's the story. Maybe it
should become a film titled, say, The Boys From Kennebunkport.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
