According to [http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060209:MTFH59403_2006-02-09_17-18-19_N09237244:1|a February 9, 2006 article] from Reuters.Com, Bush is now claiming that a terrorist attack on a skycraper in Los Angeles was thwarted back in 2002. Here's an excerpt from the article:
U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday disclosed new details of a thwarted al Qaeda plot to use shoe bombs to hijack a plane and fly it into a Los Angeles building, as he sought to justify his tactics in Washington's war on terrorism.
With critics questioning the legality of his authorization of a domestic spying program, Bush used newly declassified details of a previously disclosed plot to show that the threat of terrorism has not abated.
Bush said that in early 2002 the United States and its allies thwarted a plot to use bombs hidden in shoes to breach the cockpit door of an airplane and fly it into the the tallest building in Los Angeles.
But he named the wrong building. "We believe the intended target was Liberty Tower in Los Angeles, California," Bush said.
The what???
There's no "Liberty Tower" in LA. This guy's suffering from propaganda-itis. His aides later corrected his "misstatement", apparently. Here's more from the article:
White House aides later said he meant Library Tower.
The what???
I've never heard of that building either and I've been living in Los Angeles for the last eleven years!
Wait, here we go--more from the article:
Library Tower is now known as US Bank Tower, but locally it is still mostly called by the former name because of its proximity to the city's central library. At 1,017 feet (310 metres) tall, it is the tallest building in the United States west of the Mississippi River.
Ohhhh, wow. I've never heard of it under either name. They must have a shitty publicity department. Obviously, the US Bank Tower is downtown (where I hardly ever go) but if it's the tallest building on the west coast, you'd think it would end up being, oh, I don't know... advertised or something?
Anyway, leave it to Bush to mistake the word "library" for "liberty" and leave it to him and/or his speech-writers to not bother doing their research to learn that it's not even called Library Tower anymore since it was sold to US Bank.
However, what really bugs me about this whole thing is how Bush fills in the blanks years later. "Oh yeah, in 1973, the Bush Administration thwarted an Al Qaeda attack on...on... DODGER STATIUM in New York!"
"Uh, he meant to say, Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, in 2003," White House aides later inform us. While we're all distracted by his mistake those die-hard Bushites out there in TV land buy the rhetoric hook-line-sinker-style. "HE SAVED US!!"
The point is, he can make up any damn thing he wants and no one can stop him.
He told us that he had no idea that 911 was going to happen even though [http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm|the CIA was running a drill pretending that terrorists were crashing planes into US buildings on 9/11/01].
He told us that Saddam was a threat. We now know he wasn't even a threat to Israel, let alone the US.
He told us Saddam had nukes. In Iraq, no nukes have been found.
He told us he'd get Osama. 4.5 years later, no Osama.
Does anyone see a trend here?
Bush says one thing while the reality is something different.
The truth doesn't matter, getting caught doesn't matter--all that does matter is that millions of people around America are too stupid to realize they've been lied to...again.
Oh yeah and somehow this release of info regarding the alleged 2002 attack on "Liberty Tower" was supposed to be some sort of defense of the Unwarranted Wiretapping Program. Alas, none of the articles I read about this story could work out a specific link between the wiretapping and the thwarting of this attack in 2002 based on Bush's statements.
In other words, it's just another lie masquerading as an inference. Like Iraq being behind 911. Bush never said that directly, but he said it enough so people would think that he had. Now he's doing it again, granted, with more subtlety.
No comments:
Post a Comment