Why Believe the "Official Story" on Trump-Russia Collusion and Not the "Official Story" on 9/11?
Similarities:
Both stories involved an attack on the US by bad foreign actors
-- the 9/11/2001 attacks were done officially by the terrorist group Al Qaeda.
-- the 11/9/2016 installment of Trump as president was officially done by Russia.
Both official stories were formed by information largely from the US intel agencies and media organizations.
Both events were massively disruptive to our body politic, and threatened the stability of the US government.
Both events favored and help promote extreme right-wing policies, with hints of fascism and a police state, particularly both on border control and demonization of Muslims.
Massive tax cuts that favored the rich and caused huge federal budget deficits were pushed through the Federal government after both events.
Differences:
9/11
-- never really made a lot of sense for Al Qaeda's motives. Such a large attack was bound to lead to a massive retaliation and likely destruction of Al Qaeda. Even if Al Qaeda gambled that GW Bush would attack the middle east and cause the rise of a massive Muslim Jihad, this was still an uncertain and major gamble.
-- never made much sense operationally -- how it was run
-- had overwhelming numbers of pre-warnings for the attack that were ignored
-- the military had run hijacking drills previously that mimicked 9/11 and on 9/11 was also running hijacking drills
-- a forensic analysis of the attacks suggested the official story was wrong-- all the oddities I covered on this blog over the years.
-- the GW Bush administration always claimed the official story was right, and they were known liars.
-- the attacks were supported by "confessions" induced by torture, which rendered the confession useless.
-- there were obvious and strong motives for an inside job or false flag operation -- 1) political power and furtherance of a right-wing agenda, 2) launching of major wars against "terror" in the middle east, thus promoting American hegemony and boosting the military industrial complex.
11/9
-- the motives are clear for both Trump and Russia and the motives are coherent. Russia wanted more power and Trump was their owned asset who wanted his own power.
-- events subsequent to the 11/9 attack have supported Trump-Russian collusion, for instance Trump's bizarre behavior towards Russia, secret meetings with Putin at the Helsinki summit.
-- the attacks made sense operationally and forensically-- hacking of private emails, election material and a massive pro-Trump anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda campaign that played on American's biases and the susceptibility of the US media to manipulation.
-- Trump repeatedly claimed the official story was wrong, and he is a pathological liar.
-- torture was not used to prop up the official 11/9 story
-- no one is using the 11/9 attacks to push for any form of military war with Russia
-- there is no coherent or logical counter-narrative for Trump-Russia collusion. It's beyond absurd to say that all the obvious evidence we see int he news is purely invented. And why would it be done? To undercut Trump and help the Dems, because the intel agencies are well known liberals? Right. Or to undercut Trump because he threatens the power of the "Deep State"? There's no evidence that he's doing anything to reform the intelligence agencies or atone for previous crimes by them. Or is it all to promote increased tensions with Russia and renew the cold war? That doesn't seem to stand up to real scrutiny, since really right now, we are maintaining the status quo with Russia for the past several years (despite actions to ease sanctions on Russia by the Trump admin) and they are still attacking our elections and it's clear Putin likes Trump in power.
-------------------------------------------
The bottom line is:
-- for the 9/11 attacks, the official story is incoherent and there was a strong case for an alternative explanation
-- for the 11/9 Russian attack, the official story is coherent and there was a no logical case for an alternative explanation
This is how I rationalize these two different positions despite some similarities and worries about the sources for the stories.
Both stories involved an attack on the US by bad foreign actors
-- the 9/11/2001 attacks were done officially by the terrorist group Al Qaeda.
-- the 11/9/2016 installment of Trump as president was officially done by Russia.
Both official stories were formed by information largely from the US intel agencies and media organizations.
Both events were massively disruptive to our body politic, and threatened the stability of the US government.
Both events favored and help promote extreme right-wing policies, with hints of fascism and a police state, particularly both on border control and demonization of Muslims.
Massive tax cuts that favored the rich and caused huge federal budget deficits were pushed through the Federal government after both events.
Differences:
9/11
-- never really made a lot of sense for Al Qaeda's motives. Such a large attack was bound to lead to a massive retaliation and likely destruction of Al Qaeda. Even if Al Qaeda gambled that GW Bush would attack the middle east and cause the rise of a massive Muslim Jihad, this was still an uncertain and major gamble.
-- never made much sense operationally -- how it was run
-- had overwhelming numbers of pre-warnings for the attack that were ignored
-- the military had run hijacking drills previously that mimicked 9/11 and on 9/11 was also running hijacking drills
-- a forensic analysis of the attacks suggested the official story was wrong-- all the oddities I covered on this blog over the years.
-- the GW Bush administration always claimed the official story was right, and they were known liars.
-- the attacks were supported by "confessions" induced by torture, which rendered the confession useless.
-- there were obvious and strong motives for an inside job or false flag operation -- 1) political power and furtherance of a right-wing agenda, 2) launching of major wars against "terror" in the middle east, thus promoting American hegemony and boosting the military industrial complex.
11/9
-- the motives are clear for both Trump and Russia and the motives are coherent. Russia wanted more power and Trump was their owned asset who wanted his own power.
-- events subsequent to the 11/9 attack have supported Trump-Russian collusion, for instance Trump's bizarre behavior towards Russia, secret meetings with Putin at the Helsinki summit.
-- the attacks made sense operationally and forensically-- hacking of private emails, election material and a massive pro-Trump anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda campaign that played on American's biases and the susceptibility of the US media to manipulation.
-- Trump repeatedly claimed the official story was wrong, and he is a pathological liar.
-- torture was not used to prop up the official 11/9 story
-- no one is using the 11/9 attacks to push for any form of military war with Russia
-- there is no coherent or logical counter-narrative for Trump-Russia collusion. It's beyond absurd to say that all the obvious evidence we see int he news is purely invented. And why would it be done? To undercut Trump and help the Dems, because the intel agencies are well known liberals? Right. Or to undercut Trump because he threatens the power of the "Deep State"? There's no evidence that he's doing anything to reform the intelligence agencies or atone for previous crimes by them. Or is it all to promote increased tensions with Russia and renew the cold war? That doesn't seem to stand up to real scrutiny, since really right now, we are maintaining the status quo with Russia for the past several years (despite actions to ease sanctions on Russia by the Trump admin) and they are still attacking our elections and it's clear Putin likes Trump in power.
-------------------------------------------
The bottom line is:
-- for the 9/11 attacks, the official story is incoherent and there was a strong case for an alternative explanation
-- for the 11/9 Russian attack, the official story is coherent and there was a no logical case for an alternative explanation
This is how I rationalize these two different positions despite some similarities and worries about the sources for the stories.
