[ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks

[Jordan Hazen]

On 10/7/07, Richard Loosemore <rpwl at lightlink.com> wrote:
> > The one piece of evidence that counts against this passive
> > involvement scenario is that the administration is so stupid at
> > its highest level that thinking that far ahead is impossible for
> > it.
 
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:29:29AM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> Sure. But "inside" simply means American, and need not refer to the
> administration - that is, ultimately the President - as such. Some
> theories even suggest that Bush and his immediate staff were to an
> extent the not-too-reluctant "victims" of forces and groups who were
> afterwards to see their weight and power significantly enhanced. Not
> that this alternative possibility definitely excludes the
> possibility you are taking into consideration.

Have you read Chapter 9 of Tarpley's book, regarding the coded "Angel
is Next" message to Air Force One?  Although this line of argument
involves some speculation, it does fit well with Bush's otherwise very
unusual behavior on the day of the attacks.

> Stefano Vaj

-- 
Jordan.