Now this maybe a daring leap into the elections of 2004...maybe even some questions that needed to be asked around September the 11th, questions which I think have been a little overlooked, if asked at all... Now, with all the U.S. "super power" status, its intelligence, technological advancements, indeed, technological superiority to most of the world, does it not seem odd that something as the hijacking of three commercial aircrafts (that's 3), all during the same day, seem very implausible, or at least very suspicious? I can attempt to understand how in the world one aircraft can be jacked, but three? How about this...that the hijacking did not occur simultaneously - you'd think the guys watching the radars "got a hint" after the first accident...or is there no one keeping any contact with the pilots or keeping an eye on the planes' flight and direction? That's a daring suggestion. ...let me make it "easier" to understand: speaking of those guys watching the radars, and I'm speaking of those watching the aircrafts, just where were they? I thought there is a constant plane-to-station contact, and an eye on those planes...am I wrong? Do the planes just go off on their on...so that when a plane completely changes its pathway, no one would be there to actually be shocked? I don't know. But is it illogical to assert that at least after the first plane had hit, there would be higher measures taken immediately? As in, we should have, in one way or another, prevented the second aircraft from going astray...is this irrational? Or is that it: once a plane is hijacked, it's completley out of our control? Once a plane is hijacked, all we can do is watch? But is that really the case, that all we can do is watch? Now I'm not NASA or CIA expert, but I find it hard to beleive...that all we can do is watch. ...on the same topic of American superiority, where is Mr. Osama? Where is Saddam? Where are those destructive, world-threatening, tragic weapons that Saddam has been hiding? ...and what about Bush? What about the elections of 2004? Could he coincidently, yet all so conveniently find the weapons of mass destruction just few months, if not weeks, before the heat of elections, amidst his campaign? Is it possible that, due to absurd fate and chance, he finds Saddam even? Who knows, maybe Osama too! Maybe The Second Coming as well... ...after all, what is he going to tell the few who ask about Iraq's condition - those daring few who would say something like this: "But Mr. Prissy-dent, (or oinkydent - you choose) what are your plans for next 4 years?" What could our Leader say? Few more wars, more "liberation of oppressed people," more "War on Terrorism," more "peace" and "ridding the world from evil"? No...he needs few, new lines - something altogether interesting and different. After all, how many times have we heard the "War on Terror" - it doesn't even sound like a good thing any more. Can he say "a possible conflict on Iran," or a "a struggle with Syria," or what? Nooo. Most of the American herds are already tired of giving so much goodness to the world, of giving them so much so as to "liberate" them. No one wants to hear of few more wars. So what is our very dear Leader to say? He can say: "See, the war on terror is finally paying off. See. See. See," as he points to the very fortunate coincidence of finally capturing criminals like Saddam, or at least finding those fear-inspiring weapons of his... ...but even in this "weapons of his" we hear a joke. Saddam's weapons, or the weapons of the United States, which it had sold to him during his battle against another one of their enemies, Iran? Saddam's weapons, or...American weapons? Or, in general, weapons that were not made by Saddam at all? Who knows! ...Bushy, Bushy, Bushy, our oinkydent...where is Bushy to lead the world then? We do need new slang, something to replace "The Axis of Evil" and "Liberation." We need something to excite the rotten nerves of those bored and boring animals who find war "exciting" if only for the sake of the war! Who knows! Maybe Bush is a lover of the "war for its own sake" type of manly man. No. No. He likes his war, exciting his drooping and wrinkled body parts - that's the type of war he likes. But the herd animal as a whole is in love with that type of war when they become bored (their lives are very, very boring; they are as boring as they come) - and they call it "good." And some are respected for it too. And where did Bush come from, after all? Texas, farms, the smell of manor whiffing thru the atmosphere, moaning cows, and few ugly dogs who he can't stand being apart from...oh, and that suspiciously very similar in facial features whore of his, his sister? O? His wife! Right. …really, are we surprised? It seems that Bush is a victim of ill-breeding and bad-smelling atmopsheres...maybe we should feel sorry for him, rather than blame him! Who knows... Just utterly random thoughts playing in my head.