Sometimes, It's "Hard Work" Finding Good Evidence
By Jon Gold
"It's hard work. It's incredibly hard... It's hard work... And it's hard work... The plan says we'll train Iraqi soldiers so they can do the hard work... You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way... It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us."
President George W. Bush
Presidential Debate - 9/30/2004
Have you ever wondered why no one has been held accountable for the 9/11 attacks? Literally, with the exception of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in a United States court in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks, no one has been held accountable.
If you follow the official line, the people responsible for the attacks of September 11th were Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and 19 hijackers. September 16th, 2001, 5 days after the attacks, Osama denied having anything to do with them.
The Taliban said, "What happened in the United States was not a job of ordinary people. It could have been the work of governments. Osama bin Laden cannot do this work, neither us", and "We are not supporting terrorism. Osama does not have the capability. We condemn this. This could have been the act of either internal enemies of the United States or its major rivals."
What then gave them reason to think it was him? Could it have been the August 6th, PDB? Maybe. The title certainly didn't give it away. "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Within US". Sounds like a warning to me. Condoleeza Rice referred to it as a document that "did not warn of attacks inside the United States", but was "historical information based on old reporting", so I could be wrong.
And wow, the speed at which they surmised it was him. By 4pm, "National Security Correspondent David Ensor reports that U.S. officials say there are "good indications" that Saudi militant Osama bin Laden, suspected of coordinating the bombings of two U.S. embassies in 1998, is involved in the attacks, based on "new and specific" information developed since the attacks."
What "new and specific" information did they have? Could they be referring to the White Paper Secretary of State Colin Powell promised in Sept. 2001 to deliver to foreign governments establishing the provenance of the attacks and the guilt of Osama Bin ladin? No reports since indicate that this was done, no White Paper has ever been published.
We've seen several attacks since 9/11, and to my knowledge, someone has always been willing to take credit within a matter of days. It wasn't until November 11th, 2001 that Osama finally took credit for the attacks. That tape was questioned so much so that the President had to address it by saying, "It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored", and "That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man." So how did they know?
According to the FBI, he's not even accused of the 9/11 attacks.
Now we find out that the Pentagon made a conscious decision to allow him to escape from Tora Bora. They, "refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members", and as a result, he escaped.
Didn't they have "new and specific" information regarding his involvement with 9/11? Why did they let him escape?
What about Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?
As of right now, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the accused "mastermind" behind the 9/11 attacks has mysteriously, "disappeared in U.S. Custody".
Why hasn't he been brought to justice, and how on earth did he disappear?
And the "hijackers"?
How did they manage to get the names of the 19 hijackers within 48 hours of the event? I haven't found a flight manifest released yet that has their names on them. According to FBI Director Robert Mueller, the hijackers, "left no paper trail". Ari Fleischer, the White House Press Secretary said there were "no warnings" on the day of 9/11, yet within 48 hours they had their names plastered all over the world. Considering the buildings were still smoldering, and rescue workers were working desperately hard to find survivors at the time, I refer to that as the most amazing criminal investigation in history.
However, it's not so "amazing" when you take into account that some of the hijackers are still alive.
What about other people around the world who supposedly had something to do with 9/11.
Abdelghani Mzoudi, a Moroccon accused of "complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States" was acquitted. The presiding judge said they had "insufficient proof" against him.
Lotfi Raissi, someone who supposedly trained the 9/11 hijackers was released from custody after the presiding judge said "US authorities had provided no evidence to link the 29-year-old with terrorism".
Mounir al-Motassadeq, someone convicted , "of belonging to the al-Qaeda cell responsible for the attacks on America of September 11, 2001" only got 7 years because, the "US Justice Department had refused to co-operate fully with the German court".
Why would the U.S. Justice Department refuse to co-operate with the conviction of a man supposedly involved in the 9/11 attacks? Don't you think they would want to do everything within their power to hold everyone responsible, accountable, and cooperate with any other country trying to do the same thing?
Where's their evidence?
As of right now, we're in Iraq and Afghanistan because, according to the President, "We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens."
Originally, we were told we were going to war with Afghanistan because that's where Osama Bin Laden was supposed to be. As I pointed out earlier, if that was the reason we went into Afghanistan, than why did we let him escape?
Originally, we were told we were going to war with Iraq because of WMD, ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, and ties between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
As we all know, the evidence they had for those arguments was either forged, inaccurate, gotten through torture, or deviously created because none of those claims turned out to be true.
Why then do we believe what they say about 9/11? Where's their evidence? I have read the 9/11 Report, and I can't find any aspect of their story that rings true, or even makes the slightest sense.
Are we going to continue holding two countries accountable for the atrocities that took place on 9/11, or are we going to call for a thorough investigation into what happened, so it doesn't happen again?
This Administration has a history of putting forth faulty information as fact.
You want to know why no one has been held accountable for the attacks of 9/11?
THAT is the reason. Because it's "Hard Work" finding good evidence to support the claims brought forth by this Administration. That's why.