Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Hillary's 9/11 gambit

Billary knows that 9/11 treason is a top issue among Democrats, with one in three willing to state publicly a belief that 9/11 was a gigantic stab in the back.

Remember, we're in primary season and as the highly seasoned Clintons know, a wedge issue can make the difference between winner and losers in state primaries.

On the other hand, it is plain as the nose on your face that the corporate media do not like this wedge issue and are trying to ignore or delegitimize it. A certain contingent of Israelophiles seems to think that too much emphasis on whodunit is bad for Israel. And that contingent makes sure Democrats sense that position.

Hillary of course feels a need to pander to what is perceived as Jewish block voting -- though that phenomenon is no longer as airtight as in the past -- as can be seen by her statement that Iran is becoming a menace to both the United States and Israel.

But on the other hand playing too dumb on 9/11 is liable to shave off a significant portion of votes, with a come-from-behind Kucinich grabbing many of the votes of the 9/11 truth element. He has said he plans to hold hearings on a couple of specific holes in the government 9/11 account -- but which holes, I don't know.

Hence, here comes Billary: we're doing something about 9/11 cover-up... except that it's the easy thing to investigate: bureaucratic mishandling of the issue of the toxic cloud over Manhattan.

Of course, if Clinton and co-prober Rep. Jerry Nadler could somehow show that the coverup of the poison-gas effect was part of a larger intelligence system plot, perhaps we'd see some real change. Fat chance.

Of course the 9/11 treason issue is ensnarled in Iraq war politics. Despite the Senate's rebuff of a Democratic measure to limit war funding, anything can happen in this matter. Bush felt the need to appoint a "war czar" (many generals ducked the White House call) to try to save his administration. But, again, no telling what might happen. Everything is fluid. Impeachment of Bush and Cheney are not off the table yet. Republicans will back such a move if one more thing goes wrong, for sure. It's the Dems who oppose impeachment... But, anything goes...

BTW, some senators balked at the Dem war fund cutoff on grounds that support would have been "irresponsible." However, what do you call playing dumb about 9/11 treason? Responsible?

Wolfowitz is getting the bounce from the World Bank. A woman brought him down, they say. Yet there is another potential factor in the desire to dissociate from him: his role as a Pentagon hawk who has to be among the top suspects in the coverup of 9/11 treachery, and possibly in the advance plotting.

NOTE on previous post: So what do you think, few read this blog and of those who do, either none feel censored or if a few do, they don't feel like responding to my query? Or do you think that positive replies are blocked?

I happen to know excerpts from this blog often are posted by others, only to be quickly blocked by search engines. I am not the only person complaining of this problem. For example, the Israeli politician who writes the Samsonblinded blog has also complained of international net censorship imposed because of the writer's beliefs (which I neither oppose nor endorse).


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home