How it Happened....

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bro. Curtis, May 2, 2007.

  1. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,258
    Likes Received:
    4
    I cannot link to this, but it was written by Matt Taibbi, and it appeared in Rolling Stone, hardly a conservative think tank. The edited words were not swears, but I decided to wipe them out, so maybe folks will focus on the absurdity, and not the language.

    BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

    CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

    RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

    CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.

    RUMSFELD: We won't?

    CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

    RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

    CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

    BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

    RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

    CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of _______ nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

    RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of _______ nowhere.

    CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

    BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

    CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

    BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

    CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

    BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

    CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

    RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

    BUSH: Oh, OK.
    (ROFL...ed.)

    RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

    BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a ____ good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

    CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

    RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

    BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ____, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

    RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

    ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!
     
  2. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dont know if this little piece is supposed to be satire or someones version of what happened. It is scary that there are actually people in political office who believe this as well as a couple of nuts on this board. The hatred of the Bush administration knows no bounds. We will see how quick the Democrats pull the troops out of Iraq when they are in the White House. And they will be in the White House in 2009.
     
  3. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,258
    Likes Received:
    4
    It's satrire.
     
  4. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following is not satire...

    "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." - Project for the New American Century, pg. 52 ​
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    Makes Cheney look like a genius.:laugh:
     
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,258
    Likes Received:
    4
    RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

    CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around


    :laugh:
     
  7. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you sure it is satire? Coming from Rolling Stone? I have heard ultra liberal pundits espouse this theory. Ever listen to this idiot?

    http://www.lionelonline.com/
     
  8. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    And do you know why the Democrats will be in the White House in 2009? It is quite obvious. Without naming names, it is people (maybe on this board) who tolerate liberal republicans who have lied, cheated and broken every conservative principle known to mankind, and give them some kind of credence over the democrats.

    If Ronald Reagan was alive, I doubt he would want your support.
     

Share This Page

Loading...