Monday, June 26, 2006

An Amazing Coincidence

Regardless of your position on this topic, you cannot help but admit that a major coincidence (at the very least) took place on the morning of June 23, 2006.

It all began on the evening of June 22, 2006, when "Hannity & Colmes" (on the FOX/RNC Channel) had a guest on by the name of Dr. James H. Fetzer (see endnote). Fetzer is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Due to some unexpected initial confusion on the part of the hosts regarding their chosen "attack theme" (they got their "facts FOXED," as Fetzer said), Fetzer was given a rare opportunity to answer an open-ended question -- almost without interruption. As the lawyers all say, "Never ask a witness any question to which you do not already know the answer."

Colmes asked Fetzer something to the effect, "So can you give us one piece of evidence that would tend to point toward 9/11 being an inside job by the Bush Administration?"

While Ollie North (who was guest hosting for Hannity) was apparently still lost in confusion, Fetzer had a rare opportunity to speak a few full sentences without hostile, obnoxious interruptions. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here again), "I point you to Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta said he had encountered Vice President Cheney in a bunker in Washington, DC, at 9:20 AM, on the day of the attacks [forty-three minutes earlier than Cheney said he had arrived]. Every few seconds a young man would come into the room and say, 'Sir, it's 50 miles out. Sir, it's 40 miles out. Sir, it's 30 miles out,' and so on. Finally the young man asked the Vice President, 'Sir, do the orders still stand?' Cheney replied gruffly, 'Of course, the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

Fetzer went on to explain that only later did Mineta learn that the young man was referring to Flight 77 approaching Washington, DC, and the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down [please see my first July 6, comment in the comments section for an update on this paragraph]. That's why the young man had finally asked if the orders still stood, to which Cheney replied that they did. Shortly thereafter, Flight 77 (or a "reasonable" facsimile thereof) struck the Pentagon.

Obviously, the producers of the "Hannity & Colmes Propaganda Hour" had not anticipated such a damning bit of irrefutable evidence to escape over "their" airwaves to their glassy-eyed, drool-chinned audience.

Here's the Real Kicker...
The very next morning, less than twelve hours after his 9/11 testimony had been unexpectedly "exposed" to the FOX faithful, Norman Mineta resigned as Secretary of Transportation.

What an unbelievably amazing coincidence of timing!

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Mineta's timing was truly nothing more than a coincidence. If so, then he couldn't have picked a worse time to announce it (unless it was his relatively subtle way of sending a message to the masses). Or, if he was forced to resign by Bush/Cheney (for whatever reason), they couldn't have picked a more self-incriminating time to make it happen.

There has been barely a peep about Mineta's resignation in the mainstream media. I saw the same, generic, non-informational, totally uncurious five-second clip about it several times, but there has been absolutely no speculation as to why he did it (although his recent back surgery is implied to be the main reason). That's incredibly unusual behavior for our babbling heads, isn't it? Other high-level resignations in the last few months from the Bush Administration were the subject of endless babble among the MSM "elite."

A Final Thought
I can only imagine the sudden conflicting thoughts of at least five out of every one hundred Fox viewers who had heard Fetzer mention Mineta's damning testimony just a few hours before Mineta resigned. What must they have been thinking for a short time before their self-hypnosis kicked back in?

Click here to download the clip of the four-minute interview (in Windows Media Format). An AVI version is here.

[Note: James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.]

VIDEO: Cheney Usurps Command of NORAD

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

i tried to download the video and got about 30 seconds into it when i incuured a problem with the connection???????????

Someone needs to ask shooter live on air about the stand down

Anonymous said...

Hi Anonymous,

If you have no download success, try here:

http://www.veronicachapman.com/video/060622_FetzerHannityColmes.wmv

Re Shooter: That all depends on whether or not any planes were involved on 9/11. Sir Isaac Newton says 'not'(*). If no planes, then 'no stand down'.

(* Doesn't necessarily mean 'no flying objects')

Anonymous said...

(Link above finishes
/060622_FetzerHannityColmes.wmv)

(S911T Society Associate)

Anonymous said...

If you think 5 of 100 Fox viewers are capable of hearing something they don't already believe in, you're kidding yourself.

It's probably more like 1 in 10,000.

Anonymous said...

The mainstream media will never let that happen again. They constantly cover up for this administration from caging protestors to banning books like "America Deceived" by E.A. Blayre III. It took the mainstream media over a year to cover election fraud and secret prisons.
Support indy media.
Last link (before Google Books caves in):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

MJW said...

Anonymous 12:41 wrote: "If you think 5 of 100 Fox viewers are capable of hearing something they don't already believe in, you're kidding yourself. It's probably more like 1 in 10,000."

I agree with you completely on your numbers, at least when it comes to actually changing the minds of FOX viewers. That wasn't my point. I state that at least five out of every 100 of them (yes, I was being uncommonly generous) might simply have had "conflicting thoughts" about the timing of Minetta's resignation. I probably should have used better wording. For instance, I could have written, "They might have had a tiny, subconscious, fleeting cloud of confusion hanging over their brains, even if they weren't smart enough to determine its source or what was causing it."

Of course, as you know, I concluded the original paragraph with this thought: "What must they have been thinking for a short time before their self-hypnosis kicked back in?"

Anonymous 12:56, What won't the media let happen? Whatever it is, I completely agree with you. Your entire comment is -- word for word -- exactly what I've been saying for a long time. Have you seen the online documentary, Orwell Rolls in His Grave? You have to scroll down quite a ways once you click the link.

Anonymous said...

i think now the zionists are letting 9/11 truth out because it's getting pretty big and people are starting to point to them... not many, but some... most still blame bush and cheney when all along we know who wanted to occupy iraq and afghanistan... just look at who occupies palistine. the pnac spelled it out perfectly for us. if you happen to notice there are a lot of zionists involved with the pnac... christian and jewish for that matter. don't be folled folks... cheney and bush were involved but the buck does not stop there.

Anonymous said...

The real question is: Who controls the media?

Social Democracy Now said...

Ah, that James Fetzer can talk.

And, by the sound of it, it's a damn good thing too.

Anonymous said...

The most damning evidence regarding 9/11 was the speed with which the powers that be shipped the available evidence regarding what actually brought down the towers out of the country. If they had wanted to know what happened they would have treated the site of the attacks as crime scenes.

tim said...

When I heard Fetz was going to be on H&C on Fox I was scared but boy did he dig in his heals and ride it! Got the name of his group, Scholars for 911 Truth, in 2 or 3 times, corrected them on their continued (3 or 4 times) misrepresentation of the subject, answered questions quickly and accurately. Well done Fetz!!!

I think the powers that be are allowing a little to come onto the normal media as a warning to the BCR (Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld) gang, "screw up any more and you are expendable"!

Anonymous said...

Just a thought:

\"...the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down...\"

Is it obvious that those were the unmentioned orders? What if the orders were TO shoot the hijacked plane down if the fighters could reach it in time (which they couldn\\\'t, according to the official story)? So Cheney might have been sitting helplessly not knowing if the orders would be executed. It could go either way, to shoot down or not to shoot down, since the orders aren\'t stated in front of Mineta.

You may be right, you may be wrong, I don\'t see the proof either way based on this testimony.

I\'ll stick with the well documented evidence of a too big/powerful US government corrupted by AIPAC/NeoCon/Zionist influence that is all too eager to spend American lives and money to weaken Israel\'s enemies... along with the lure of strategic bases in oily countries for the rare decision-maker who is motivated by American interests instead of the Israel-firsters holding most of the power. This influence goes back well before 9/11 (and is also why we were attacked in the first place). 9/11 and Bush\'s wars (along with the increasing popularity of the Internet) have certainly brought this influence closer to the surface, but the roots of Zionist corruption of our foreign policy run decades deep.

Anonymous said...

I've still not heard any rational explanation as to why all the fighter jets were flying at 500mph, slower than the standard cruising speed of a commercial plane at altitude.
The F-15 has a top speed of 1830mph, the F-16's is 1320mph. Their range with full afterburner was still more than sufficient to chase down the planes. It all stinks.

Anonymous said...

From my experience, the bulk of the Fox News crowd is actually the easiest to convert when you speak to them face to face. True, the mindless sheep will not even listen, but many of their previous viewers (they have dropped considerably in the past two quarters) were small government Constitutional Republicans in the mold of Bob Barr. When you look at the former government (military and economics) people who have come out, almost without fail they have fit this mold.

Even the "Get a Jesus Tattoo" Fox News watchers can be converted fairly quickly with a single viewing of the Bohemian Grove footage.

Criticizing Fox News watchers, or any corporate news watchers, is not going to help us win this information war. Approaching each of them individually or in small groups face to face and speaking of the impact this has for each of them in their daily lives is what works in the end. To do this we need to know what we are talking about in detail. Its quite astonishing the change in the average person when you explain to them why the money that they spend every day working for is valueless and controlled by a few bankers.

The average Corporate News viewer isn't dumb; it’s just that the corporate news is what's on when they get home from work. Additionally, they have grown up in a culture with great reverence of men like Walter Cronkite and the other anchors as being men to be trusted.

Quite the opposite of Fox Viewers (in general) I've found that the hardest to convert are NY Times/Washington Post/Economist readers with doctorates. They will admit to 90% of what you say but the propaganda they have been receiving for so many years has been so sophisticated that they can not bring themselves to accept that they have been so completely duped. Of this group, I've only been able to change two or three and even those with great effort. It’s something quite astonishing when a mechanical engineering professor looks at building 7 and refuses to even consider that it could have been an inside job because, if it had been, the New York Times would have told him about it. These are the defenders of the status quo government/corporation corruption, not because they are bad people, but because they are so educated that they end up as complete morons.

The key to getting people to see the truth isn't to complain on discussion boards (though it is a good way of letting off steam now and again) but to engage people on the street and in their daily lives. Build up a list of quality resources, annotated and fact checked, that you can hand out to those people you see around town. Tailor that list to their needs and talk to each of them personally. Include your name and e-mail on the list so they can contact you with questions. Carry a leather case filled with the declassified documents. Dress nice, be clean and you will be amazed at how much success you will have.

The Author said...

Anyone who supports Bush at this final hour is your enemy and you'd better regard that person as nothing less than a religous fanatic. Do not attempt to reason or converse with these people, they are unable to change paths and sooner or later they will turn violent.

Anonymous said...

The sooner the BETTER..............
The only hope for our Republic to survive its zionist parasite is bloody confrontation. Cleansing if you will.

MJW said...

Anonymous 7/5/6, 11:37 PM asks: "What if the orders were TO shoot the hijacked plane down if the fighters could reach it in time (which they couldn't, according to the official story)?"

Yes, I admit that even Minetta assumed they were shoot-down orders (I just now looked it up and stand corrected). Nonetheless, my main point still stands that it was an amazing coincidence of timing for Minetta to resign the morning after Jim Fetzer mentioned his name on TV in relation to the Cheney/bunker story.

However, it defies all logic, rhyme and reason that fighter jets, which are more than three times faster than commercial airliners couldn't have reached Flight 77 in time. After all, by that time, the U.S. military had had over an hour's notice that planes were flying off course in the northeastern U.S. (keep in mind that I mean an hour's notice from the first moment the first plane flew RADICALLY off course, not from the first moment it struck the first WTC tower). Fighter jets should already have been all over the skies by the time Flight 77 was even a few minutes off course. Those fighters should have been ready to turn in any direction at any time on a second's notice (how convenient that a whole bunch of them were off fighting an imaginary, and long-defunct Russian invasion fleet in northern Canada, and officials on the ground in this country were dealing with numerous fake hijack blips all over the northeast -- the very same region in which the actual hijackings were taking place -- a plot straight out of a cheap pulp novel).

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that fighter jets weren't in the air yet. Andrews Air Force Base is only TEN MILES from Washington, DC! Fighters from that base could have been in the air by the time Flight 77 was half way between Ohio and Washington, DC. It would have required no effort at all to reach Flight 77 long before it was too late, because all they would have had to do was get in the air and immediately start circling, waiting for Flight 77 to arrive (it's not as if they were hurriedly racing to Washington, DC, from South Carolina or Colorado and couldn't make it in time). Furthermore, the Pentagon, as you probably know, is almost certainly the most heavily defended building on the planet. Do you honestly think they were caught unaware an entire hour after the attacks had begun?

If Cheney did give a sincere shoot-down order, as Minetta's testimony implies, then he must have done so some time (possibly a long time) before Flight 77 was 50 miles out, since the orders were already "standing." That means fighter jets should have had ample time to reach Flight 77 since they were already in Washington, DC.

[By the way, shoot-down orders should never have been Cheney's responsibility in the first place; he had inexplicably taken that responsibility upon himself only a few months earlier. In so doing, he broke a military chain of command that had been in place since the 1950s. Why?]

Once again, for the sake of argument, let's forget shoot-down orders for a moment. Instead, we will concentrate on intercept orders. As I say, there should have been fighter jets all over the sky by 9:30 AM, and, at the very, very, very least, they should have been escorting Flight 77 for quite some time once it had gone off course over Ohio. They should have been cruising along with it, just waiting to receive a shoot-down order. In fact, one would normally think that a shoot-down order is only given when a suspect plane refuses to respond to the orders of the fighter jets that have been sent up to give it a visual inspection. Why would the young man in the bunker with Cheney even ask -- or even care -- if the shoot-down orders still stood at "10 miles out" if there were no fighter planes close enough to reach Flight 77 in time? At 10 miles out and flying over 500 MPH, Flight 77 was already much too close to its target. The young man (or one of his associates) was obviously watching a radar screen in order to know the location of Flight 77. That means he would also have known the location of any fighter jets that were within range to intercept it. If they really were still too far away to shoot it down, then why even bother asking the vice president about the shoot-down orders in a tone that seems to imply regret or hesitation?

With that last thought in mind, it is possible to see how some people might conclude that Cheney had given orders NOT to shoot it down. The exchange seems to make a tiny bit more sense that way.

Nonetheless, you have made a good point. I probably should have said that the orders may well have been to shoot it down. I will add a note to refer to the comments section for this update.

MJW said...

ANONYMOUS, 7/6/6, 2:07 AM, said: "From my experience, the bulk of the Fox News crowd is actually the easiest to convert when you speak to them face to face."

I have lived in the heart of the "Fox News crowd" all of my life. On an individual basis, I find them about 40-60 when it comes to changing their minds, at least since the advent of Fox News. Check out this young, naive woman's June 16, 2006, entry (she even proudly calls herself a neocon in the Blogger sub-header). Prior to Fox News, they were a lot more open minded (maybe that's why I was being "uncommonly generous" when I said "5 out of every 100"; who knows? I was just throwing numbers around for effect ;-). In other words, I agree with you to some extent; however, I was referring to the mass of Fox News viewers who were watching that episode of Hannity & Colmes, who don't have an individual there to argue the point with them. As a huge TV-viewing demographic -- not on an individual basis --, it is practically impossible to change their minds, and that was my point.

ANONYMOUS 7/6/6, 2:07 AM said: "Many of [Fox's] previous viewers (they have dropped considerably in the past two quarters) were small government Constitutional Republicans in the mold of Bob Barr. When you look at the former government (military and economics) people who have come out, almost without fail they have fit this mold."

I agree with that completely, and it is very heartening. Here is one of my favorite links Ultra-conservative John Birch Society Survey. I've passed it around to a number of people and posted it at one or two web sites. However, if those viewers are lost to Fox News, then that probably means they didn't see Fetzer on Hannity & Colmes. That means we are left only with the intransigent viewers. Just for the sake of argument, one must also consider that Keith Olbermann might have a very small point. A few months ago, he surmised that Fox's audience numbers (O'Reilly's in particular) might also be dropping because their viewers are very old senior citizens, and they are dying off much faster than Olbermann's relatively younger viewers, and they aren't being replaced by "younger" viewers. I like your theory better, though.

ANONYMOUS 7/6/6, 2:07 AM said: "Even the "Get a Jesus Tattoo" Fox News watchers can be converted fairly quickly with a single viewing of the Bohemian Grove footage."

I would like to think you're right, but that footage had better be pretty detailed and irrefutable, because the right-wing religious people I know would call it a hoax. Do you have a video link that I could use? I've seen Alex Jones' brief footage of a Bohemian Grove ceremony from all the way across a lake. There's not enough there to convince anyone of anything.

ANONYMOUS 7/6/6, 2:07 AM said: "Criticizing Fox News watchers, or any corporate news watchers, is not going to help us win this information war."

Normally, I would agree with you, but I've had so much personal experience with them that I find it is, precisely as you say, "a good way of letting off steam." Furthermore, I'm really very sure that the vast majority of Fox viewers will never read my blog. In fact, the smallest fraction of them that is still visible to the naked eye will never read it. Besides, I must confess that I was actually preaching to the converted and other open-minded types in this entry.

ANONYMOUS 7/6/6, 2:07 AM said: "Approaching each of them individually or in small groups face to face and speaking of the impact this has for each of them in their daily lives is what works in the end."

As I say, I am surrounded by ultra-conservative people every day. Whenever any political topic comes up, I have almost always done precisely as you recommend, because they certainly aren't going to listen if I start out by insulting them. I even wrote something very similar to what you wrote (although on a different political subject). It is hidden somewhere on my hard drive, and I would have to search for weeks to find it. Elsewhere in life, one woman recently said to me, "Why are you telling me this stuff? I don't want to hear it. I'm just one person, and I can't do anything about it." I replied to her, "I have told you because you might, in turn, tell one other person, and that one other person might turn around and tell someone else. Yes, it's very slow, but that's how word spreads." Not long after that, she reported to me that she had told someone else in her family, who quickly agreed with her (and me). Other family members within earshot expressed curiosity, and now the word has spread to people in at least two other states. Who knows how many people they will tell? In short, you are right, and that's how I operate in real life. My blog is not real life to me.

ANONYMOUS 7/6/6, 2:07 AM said: "To do this we need to know what we are talking about in detail. Its quite astonishing the change in the average person when you explain to them why the money that they spend every day working for is valueless and controlled by a few bankers."

Yep, that's one angle that hits conservatives where they live: their pocketbooks. Speaking of bankers, are you aware of this major documentary that will be coming to theaters later this month? America: Freedom to Fascism There are several trailers (including a 14-minute promo) of the documentary on the site.

ANONYMOUS 7/6/6, 2:07 AM said: "The average Corporate News viewer isn't dumb; it's just that the corporate news is what's on when they get home from work."

I agree, but converting a conservative who has been told everything they want to hear by the corporate news (like kids wanting to be scared by a scary movie) is about as easy as converting a devoutly religious person to paganism. Also, as you say, some of the hardest people to convert are the smart people (or those who think they're smart).

ANONYMOUS 7/6/6, 2:07 AM said: "I've found that the hardest to convert are NY Times/Washington Post/Economist readers with doctorates. They will admit to 90% of what you say but the propaganda they have been receiving for so many years has been so sophisticated that they can not bring themselves to accept that they have been so completely duped. "

Once again, I think it is a 60-40 thing. Some are very easy to convert. Others are impossible to convert. Those educated people who are the hardest to convert are equally as hard to convert as the most unrepentant Fox News viewer. Some of those who annoy me most for their close-mindedness are found in the comments section at Alternet and other liberal blogs.

ANONYMOUS 7/6/6, 2:07 AM said: "The key to getting people to see the truth [is] to engage [them] on the street and in their daily lives. Build up a list of quality resources, annotated and fact checked, that you can hand out to those people you see around town."

I've done that for years. I have so many resources linked and fact checked (although I do make mistakes occasionally, as I did in this post) that I can barely keep track of all of them.

ANONYMOUS 7/6/6, 2:07 AM said: "Tailor that list to their needs and talk to each of them personally.

I don't know of any other way to do it. I seldom see Fox News viewers in large crowds. But, when I do, I definitely don't enter the fray in order to talk politics. That would be a huge fiasco.

Anonymous said...

First i find it appauling that when given a very small amout of time to Fetzer,they interupt him constantly,and ask the who's and why's. But they lack the backbone to look at all the experts findings of st911.org that will lead to the who's &why's.
By the way....the Team liberty debate team,the 911 commission member decline to particpate,as well as the NIST members....Go figure! This needs radio & media coverage....WISDOM

Anonymous said...

One has to consider the possibility that 911 not only was a inside job but that the exposure of the truth concerning 911 will be a carefully managed event that the ones who implimented 911 will use to their advantage. To what end? To totally discredit our form of government in order to impliment a new government. Possibly the American Union? Think tanks work and plan years and decades in advance.

Anonymous said...

More amazing "coincidences":
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com

concerned brit fire fighter said...

On the record Larry Silverstein states that the fire service decided to pull building WT7.Can anybody tell me how long it would take to plant the nessary charges to acomplish such a task.Could it take just a few hours as it would have appeared to have or would take a lot longer ????

MJW said...

Hello, "concerned brit fire fighter..."

According to experts in the business, it normally takes many days just to determine ideal locations to plant the explosives in a controlled demolition. Once that preliminary planning is completed, then the actual installation of hundreds of explosives throughout a 47-story building (not counting the basement floors?) must be undertaken.

el-mujaheed said...

BOTH BUSH AND CHENEY AND RUMSFELD ARE CRYPTO JEWS, WHILST THE REST ARE OVERT JEWS!!!

http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/meanwhile_j.htm#SECRET%20JEWS%20RULE%20U.S.A.%20AND%20THE%20WORLD

THIS WHOLE THING IS A CRYPTO-ZIONIST OPERATION.

SourDove said...

[By the way, shoot-down orders should never have been Cheney's responsibility in the first place; he had inexplicably taken that responsibility upon himself only a few months earlier.]

Are you sure? AJ said that in Chicago, too, but the June 1
change in in SOP specified that requests be forwarded to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d).

Even the cOmmission thought the
Dick didn't clear his belated
order with anyone. He just
waited until everything was over and made the call. Rummy,
meanwhile, had taken a tactical
powder for half an hour, and the
cOmmission never could account
for that either.

Swim said...

Amaazing...Thank you so much for the link to your site. Great post.
And thanks for your comment at my blog, its much apprieciated.

-Swim

JonH said...

Fetzer on Hannity & Colmes:
http://www.jonhs.com/911/james_fetzer_hannity_colmes.htm

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism:
http://www.jonhs.com/freemovies/outfoxed.htm

Anonymous said...

Did I not read somewhere that the Pentagon was protected by Patriot Missles? The Petagon did not need a Military Jet to shoot down an aircraft, only and order to do so.
I'm sure that the Pentagon can protect itself.

MJW said...

I completely agree with you, Anonymous 10/22/06. I am certain the Pentagon could have stopped the incoming aircraft without any assistance from fighter jets.

Former Happy American said...

Two words. Operation Northwoods.

Ask people who saw the Shanksville
"crash", and they will tell you a white jet with no markings shot down that flight.

We are lazy, we are sheep.

Anonymous said...

I disagree some what with the statement that "we are lazy, we are sheep" plenty of us are not, but short of burning down Congress, The White House and rioting in the streets..not a one of our brave representatives (who have sworn an oath (on the bible) to protect the Constitution and our Laws) have actually stepped forward and led...the few that have have been ridiculed and compromised by the "fourth estate"..come to think of it maybe we should start by destroying the holdings and lairs of the fourth estate, the government propaganda machines...I have read that one of the things Senator Obama is wanting to do..is exactly that...stop media consolidation...could that be why the corporate news media is so less willing to cut Mr. Obama a break, while they quite often let McCain, even Hillary skate?

Anonymous said...

There's only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?

The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.

How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?

In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?

The gov't lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov't lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov't lied about 9/11?

generic cialis 20mg said...

Hi, well be sensible, well-all described