I guess I am a 'Doubting Thomas' of sorts. I would rather examine what people have to say (along with their motives for saying it) than subscribe to a knee-jerk reaction to them or their beliefs.
"Troofer" and similar labels are intended to deride, but do not describe the logic behind the derision. I am immediately likely to want to look harder at the evidence when such labels are used. As a result of such labelling and the knee-jerk reactions many have, details which might otherwise come to light may be be buried or overlooked.
Whether someone is accused of a crime or not (easy way for deflection from either side, the criminal investigators or the individual making allegations), their observations may be valid and those should be examined.
How is this any different than ignoring the 'John Does', alleged warnings to ATF personnel, additional devices alleged to be found in the Murragh Building, and explosives analyses done of the Oklahoma City bombing?
Something, some event so important should be scrutinized from every angle, and only then can the truth of what happened come out.
Surely motivation for establishing policy or law on the basis of 'conventional wisdom' evaluations should be examined also.
I find it interesting that people denied any evil could come out of a government staffed with the same people (for the most part) who had been in those same positions while Clinton was in office. I find it even more incredible that there are those who might immediately and without examining all aspects of the investigation(s) summarily deny any wrongdoing based merely on the political affiliation of the person who is in the top job, even though 8 years of 'bushhate' should have demonstrated that there were those in our government and elsewhere wou would consider a few casualties or some 'collateral damage' a small price to pay for moving their agenda forward.
Keep in mind the Patriot Act provisions which can now be applied against all those 'Jesus-loving, bitter, gun clinging, Constitution reading, right-winged radical domestic terrorist types' were passed on Bush's watch, over the objections of Conservatives who saw the potential for abuse if some one in office decided to do so, and foresaw the possibility of Hillary or worse wielding these same tools against patriotic Americans.
We are adults here, and should be able to discuss evidence on its merits or lack thereof, without the knee-jerk reaction to ideas we might find unpleasant to consider.
I for one, have noticed that the Global Socialist agenda has yet to be substantially slowed, that no matter which party is in power, the foundations are constantly being laid and/or built upon for a global socialist order. It has been thus since my youth.
For me, the lack of border enforcement, even after 9/11 was the 'dog that didn't bark'.
Our borders should have been secured, illegals removed, and done pronto. To spend treasure and lives and material trying to ensure our 'national security' elsewhere while leaving the Southern Border a wide open walk-through still makes no sense.
If there are other allegations and evidence of omission, collusion, or foreknowledge of these events, let's find them and let the chips fall where they may.
But methinks you are confusing complicity with opportunism.
Remember, the left's big push in the wake of 9-11 was :
a) DON'T target Muslims, we are all multicultural
b) We really NEED a UNIONIZED govt. dept for airport security.
I think they are only conveniently seizing on the security apparatus set up by Bush, to aggrandize their own nascent police state powers.
Cheers!
Good post. Nothing wrong with wanting to know the truth.