I agree that it’s insane to suggest that America’s leaders would actually plan or condone a direct fatal attack on thousands of American civilians for the sake of personal profit.
However, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand an investigation of the ways in which the pursuit of our economic interests in Afghanistan by this Administration (and the ones preceding it) may have endangered our security interests. Extremely definite accusations to that effect were made in the recent book Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, asserting that the Administration was bolstering up the Taliban for the sake of a proposed oil pipeline to diminish Russian dominance of the Central Asian oil supply. While these are mostly just unproven allegations (a good skeptical discussion of them is this UPI article), I’d like to know what the real story is. (I hope it won’t brand me as a rabid reactionary Bush-hater if I say that the mere fact that the government denied these allegations doesn’t automatically convince me that of course they must be untrue. ;)) But as for trying to suggest that the government deliberately and knowingly allowed the attacks to take place…give it up, Congresswoman.
As for whether McKinney’s constituents “would favor any investigation of Bush because they dislike him”: well, Georgia’s Fourth Congressional District (which elected McKinney in 1996 after she was “redistricted”, due to a 1995 Supreme Court decision, from the old 11th District which was 65% black to the new 4th District which is 65% white) is made up of most of DeKalb County (of which about 28% voted for Bush in 2000) and some of Gwinnett County (of which about 66% voted for Bush). In that bunch there may well be some Rabid Reactionary Bush-Haters of the sort that december seems to devote so much of his time to trying to detect. :rolleyes: On the other hand, McKinney also vehemently criticized Clinton for various things including the NATO bombings in t.f. Yugoslavia and prohibition of funding for needle exchange programs, and her constituents seem to have been okay with that too.
Besides this 9/11 conspiracy theory, though, I cannot quite figure out what Mullinator thinks is so “vastly insane and wildly nutty” about McKinney’s legislative record. She is described as having “given voice to radical critiques of U.S. policy”, but surely that in itself doesn’t constitute prima facie evidence of “nuttiness”.