Will the truth ever be confirmed about 9/11?

By now, for most people the memory of 9/11 is probably sealed away in the back of their unconscious mind. Only to be remembered every year when that day comes around and we are reminded about what happened that day. Most of us probably accepted what we saw on T.V. about how it happened and how George W. Bush said terrorist were to blame and what not. But what facts did they give us to solidify what they told us? How do we know they can be trusted? I guess it should seem obvious that the people should trust their own president. Because God forbid how America would react if somehow we discovered there was this huge top secret cover up where high government officials actually knew about, or even worse, helped with 9/11 and just used it as an incentive to invade the Middle East.

That's what some people have been trying to figure out for the past 7 years now. And from what I've read, these are just a very few points that got my attention. There have been a large amount of military, intelligence, and government officials that have criticized the 9/11 Commission Report to be tragically flawed. Some of their reports can be found here. The explanations that the media fed us on how the towers collapsed have been proven to be lies. The fires created by the jet fuel could not have reached temperatures high enough to cause the UL-rated steel to fail. And What about WTC 7? A plane didn't even fly into that tower, and yet it collapses after 1 and 2, because of a fire? I don't think so. I guess we could always just take Larry Silverstein's word for it, who was the leaseholder of WTC 7. He confessed on tape he had the building demolished to prevent the spreading of fire. Engineers and architects have said that the towers collapses were due to controlled demolition, judging by how the towers fell. Which would probably explain the material that looked like thermite found at all three ground zeroes, which has the ability to reach temperatures that allow it to cut right through steel. One of the main things that really bugs me though is this. When the towers we being attacked, George W. Bush was in a school classroom and when TOLD the towers were under attack he just nodded and said, " We're going to go ahead with the reading lesson." Where he then continued to interact with the students and teacher. One would think the secret service would have taken him to a safe spot immediately, since you know, a school wouldn't have been exactly the safest place to be at the time, and you would probably be putting the children and teachers lives in danger as well. But no instead he took his sweet time and afterwords went on national T.V. interview that had been announced and planned in advance.

Remember those were just a few things I found that grabbed my attention. There are many more resources on the web that carry information which show 9/11 could have possibly been a cover up. Reading about it and watching it all add up was a scary thing. I'd like to believe what I have been these past seven years which is that the terrorist were solely responsible and the US had nothing to do with it, but there are so many theories that point in the other direction. It's hard to believe that high powered US officials could have been involved in 9/11, and that our government could be partially to blame for all the lives lost. Just so we could have a real reason to go fight overseas, and not just for the oil. But there are people who have lived on this earth who have met that level of cruelness before. So with all that said, I don't think the real truth will ever come out if it hasn't already yet, and 9/11 may just remain a deep dark secret of America forever, if it ever was a secret to begin with. We may never know. On the bright side, if the government did lie to all of us. We can all rest in peace that Bush is almost out of the oval office. HIP HIP HURRAY

Republican Rage

With the final days of the race coming closer and closer to an end it makes sense that the current running Republican and Democratic candidates are making every last effort to ensure their victory in the coming election. Since then it has become apparent that the Republican candidates are clearly taking a more aggressive approach towards the Democrats. In a recent editorial called Obama the Subhuman, published on Counterpunch, Anthony DiMaggio goes more in depth on the attacks McCain and Palin are hitting Obama with. The first one he states was how McCain dehumanizes Obama at the debates. First with refusing to acknowledge his presence at the first debate and then referring to Obama as "that one" at the second debate, seeing as Obama wasn't worthy of being referred to by his actual name. The next thing DiMiggio mentions is what that squealing Palin has been stirring up in her crock pot lately- spreading warnings of Obama's alleged support for domestic terrorism. And don't forget the Republicans favorite new word to say, Obama's middle name which is, "Hussien" apparently makes you a terrorist by default now. DiMiggio also mentions how conservative political leaders are saying a victory for Obama is a victory for Islam, radical-terrorism, and anti-Americanism. All the while Obama and Biden have been generally showing the Republicans respect and even voicing their support for the Republicans efforts in decreasing violence in Iraq.

In conclusion DiMiggio argues that "Due to the Republicans loss of power in the upcoming election, they have become increasingly desperate in their attacks on the Democrats and the legitimacy of the two party state" and how this aggressive stance the Republicans have taken is a sign of growing extremism of conservatives. He ends his article with the statement, " The Democratic party today may be morally bankrupt, spineless, and bland, but none of those are anywhere near as dangerous as the republicans Party's fundamentalist contempt for multi-party elections and bi-partisan politics." I would have to agree with Dimiggio's statements and argument. As to me it makes the Republicans look like a bunch of bullies desperate for some lunch money, or should I say, votes. Therefore this article to me would seem to appeal to Obama supporters.

Extra reasoning for bailout approval

In an editorial called Save the Fats Cats, in The New York Times, it is discussed why it's so important to act swift and approve the bailout as soon as possible. The author of the editorial is Nicholas D. Kristof, a two time winner of the Pulitzer Prize, and previously an associate managing editor of The Times. Kristof attempts to convince to those who oppose the bailout why it is necessary to accept the sacrifices that will be made in order to hopefully achieve the long term goal. He compares our current economic situation to one very similar that happened in Japan back in the 1990's. He states that Japanese politicians ignored and growing bank crisis and then acted indecisively on a bailout. Since the business men involved were considered "jerks," Japan did not see any need to act quickly. Thus making the entire economy slowly pay the price, like cutting back government spending which eliminated vital services and the inability for individuals to gain credit. Forcing Japan to endure what Kristof called a "lost decade" of economic stagnation. To this day, their main stock index is less than one-third of what it used to be nineteen years ago. So for anyone who think this will all just go away quickly, they might want to think again.

I'd like to say that for the most part I agree with Kristof's argument and reasoning behind it. He acknowledges that it's unfair for the average working family to lose almost everything they got, while the actually people responsible for the problem are the ones getting rescued. I for one would like to see the people responsible pay through the damn nose. But if we sit here do nothing about the current situation, the possible outcome may be worse than that of which will result from the bailouts approval. We don't want what happened to Japan to happen to us. So our priority right now should be to get the credit unfrozen and flowing again. And then like Kristof said, " If the Congressional critics of the bailout want to do some lasting good, they should come back in January — after approving the bailout now — with a series of tough measures to improve governance and inject more fairness in the economy."