Quote:You don’t have to be a mindnumbed Bushbot to think that that suggestion is absurd.
"These and other unanswered questions have led to several theories
that Bush let the attack happen.
One being as an excuse to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan
which was considered an obstacle to exploitation of Caspian Sea oil.
Another may have been to grease the path
for draconian measures through the congress. Some, including this writer,
believe it to be a combination of the two."
If it had been Clinton in power instead of Bush, would it be so hard to believe?
I've been on threads during Clinton's term in office where we speculated on just such an attack, to be used as an excuse to extend Clinton's term due to a State of Emergency combined with a long drawn out war.
The Talaban would not allow oil lines in Afganistan. The new government will, it's already in the works.
The passing of the Patriot Act was unthinkable before 9-11. It was shot down badly a couple of years ago, on the grounds that it gave government too much power. After 9-11, the Patriot Act passed without a murmur.
Covert operations could have started the fall of the Taliban and any number of excuses could have been dreamed up to step into the ensuing civil war.
Or we could have gone through another friendlier country.
The theory is patently absurd.
Yet it was written well in advance of 9/11 suggesting that it was "waiting in the wings" for an appropriate event. Ron Paul was one of the few who voted "no" and commented that it was not even offered to Congressman and Senators to read before being voted upon.
If that doesn't smack as something sinister and planned, nothing does.