I realize you’re not being serious but have you seen this Vanity Fair article?
So, hang on. What you’re trying to say is that, “I’m going to put out this wildly speculative theory. Prove it wrong!”
Well, we don’t need to. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”–James Randi. The onus is on you to prove the theory, rather than us to prove it wrong.
All we’ve got so far is “Rove is evil/crazy enough to do anything” (tru dat, but that doesn’t mean he did do this), “Norquist is the link between Islamic terrorists and Karl Rove” (doesn’t prove he was in connection with the 9/11 cell, or that Al Qaeda ever informed him about 9/11, or even that he was in cahoots with Al Qaeda), and–well, that’s about it.
Your comments that 9/11 “helped” the GOP are meaningless. WWI “helped” the US economy, eventually, though I doubt that Woodrow Wilson was involved with the assassination of the Archduke.
Hell, if there was anything at all to this, don’t you think this would be being shouted from the rooftops by Bush’s opponents? I would be. But there’s nothing serious there.
Moreover, it was Muslim “outreach,” translation: craven political cash reasons, that caused this flap.
It’s time for the Pentagon to rehire the gay and the Jewish translators they fired for stupid reasons, being gay on the one hand, and Jewish on the other. Arabic speakers: the US government needs you.
If you read the article I provided, which is well-footnoted, the Islamist influence is the biggest scandal in this whole affair. They bought “access” from two administrations and both parties.
When I say “back-channel” I mean this: it’s not even crystal clear that the fundraising Norquist does has links to “terrorism,” much less al Qaeda. It’s a double-secret link, if it exists at all. Which, there is NO evidence it does. Hamas and Hezbollah, for example, spend some of their money on schools and hospitals, I believe. Perhaps Norquist would raise that in his defense.
Translation: I like this conspiracy theory, just don’t count me among the loonies. 
All the snide shit aside, I figured GWB would do something that would justify an invasion of Iraq, just so we could have a reason to establish a strong, long standing military presence there. Of course I thought “there it is!” when the planes started crashing, but the attack was so ferocious that I found (and still do) it hard to believe that it was orchestrated by anyone other than a highly organized terrorist organization. Rather, I prefer to believe (when in conspiracy mode) that GWB and his evil minions meant to allow something to happen, just turned out to be a pretty big something.
Reason doesn’t allow me to believe the story at all. Reason tells me that GWB is capitalizing in a most shameful way on one that got past our intel folks. That same spin can be used for the Pearl Harbor, Lisutania, etc. attacks that "drew"us into wars.
My guts tell me that GWB would have orchestrated the whole thing if 1) he were smart enough and 2) it were possible to keep so many necessary co-conspirators quiet.
But I like the way you think E.C. 
I like it, man does his homework!
Reminds me of an article I wrote for my site several years ago, in which I used several bondage porn models who’d gotten bit parts in movies (and one in particular who became a major scream queen in B-movies) to play six degrees of separation and linked Ronald Reagan, Jay Leno, Bill Maher and a couple others to varioius bondage porn models.
Ah, life is good.
This explains your posting style.
(I like you actually, it was just such a good straight line!)
Thank you, Jeff! I guess it’s not so far fetched after all.
Was it a Ticonderoga brand? Because if it was not, then it is just the government faking alien abductions. Real aliens only use Ticonderoga brand number 2 pencils.
BTW, alien abductions are far fetched. Governments staging terrorist attacks against their own is possible at least.
Yup. Life gave him a basket of 2500 lemons so he made lemonade, is how I see it.
Not that I believe the cockamamie conspracy theory, but it is worth remembering that the Bush Administration was briefed (repeatedly) by the Clinton Administration that al Qaeda was a growing security concern to the United States, and that terrorism would be a major issue in the coming years.
It’s not quite a “Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing to stop it” conspracy theory, but it’s not entirely in tinfoil-hat land to wonder if the Bush Administration didn’t crack down on terrorism because they were hoping for a Pearl Harbor-esque event to occur during their time in office…
(Not that I believe it myself, but just stating the possibilities)
You know, two people recently said I wasn’t reading what they wrote. And instead of thinking that maybe there was a different interpretation of things, they decided to get all huffy about it. And that and they really fucking pissed me off.
Since I don’t want to have this happen a third time, let me write from the brain now, and not any other part of my anatomy. I did read your OP enough to see that you intended this for GD, but put it here regardless. Thus, I will treat it like a GD post.
I contend that speculating seriously about extraordinary claims requires some extraordinary evidence to entertain the notion. There has been no extraordinary evidence presented, and thus the speculation seems on a specious grounding. That is my reason for my point of comparison.
It’s like me saying “OK…this Blogger says that TWA 800 was shot down by an Aegeis Cruiser because a French journalist quotes an unnamed, anonymous, unverifiable source. And the Captain of the USS Dumbfuck owned stock in AA, a competitor to TWA on that route. And look what happened - TWA went bankrupt, in part due to this accident (which crippled their seating on the lucrative trans-Atlantic routing), thus opening them up to be bought by - you guessed it - AA. I think that’s serious, and needs looking into.” There is a preponderance of evidence opposing that theory, however, and therefore it’s going to take something much, much more concrete to really re-open discussion. Such as “a personal diary of the Captain of the USS Dumfuck, taken from his bullet-ridden corpse outside of a Wendys in Scranton, show that he thought TWA really meant ‘Terrorist Worldwide Alliance’, and thus he was justified in obeying his dog’s orders to shoot down the plane…”
But there are too many positive assumptions that must be made to establish any chain of events. To seriously examine the statement as-written, you have to assume:
-
That because an organization has terrorists as members, anyone who supports it therefore actively supports terrorism. That’s like saying “this abortion clinic bomber went to a church, thus the members of that church are supporting of his actions”.
-
That this “ear” to the Bush Administration is an influential ear which either decides, determines, or influences policy decisions. Especially to the point of mass murder of innocents.
-
That the “dirty tricks” that Mr. Rove has engaged in lead him down a slippery slope of mass murder. In fact, it seems that there is a not-so-subtle accusation that Mr. Rove would in fact engage in mass murder, on the prompting of others.
-
And, by extention, that the Bush Administration, right from the proverbial rotting fish at the top, would have to know about, believe as serious, and approve mass murder of innocents. Remember, this is not a monolithic organization which closes all ranks and leaks nothing. There have been plenty of leaks on much, much lesser topics. Word would get out.
From your OP:
There is no link. “Working together” does not equate to profound influence. In any event, there is no clear argument that any of these “dirty tricks” people, as you term them, is currently a criminal or committing criminal acts. And there’s a long, long, leap from “trading shots with James Carville” to “mass murder”. Maybe if he was stuffing dead hookers in Carville’s car, perhaps the leap would be shorter. Even then, it’s a long leap.
As I listed above, I think there is a high burden of evidence required to prove your speculation. That’s what I’m saying.
I disagree. I think there are too many links in the chain, for motive, means, opportunity, character, and basic human morals and expected human actions, all of which combine to set a high burden of proof for opening serious discussion which I feel has nto been met. A burden of proof equal to many of the other examples I quoted.
Do you understand now?
Odds that the OP will come in and say “Yea but you didn’t prove that it didn’t happen” or words to that effect: Approaching 1:1
I think it’s more important to point out that there is a plausible case to be made that if Bush hadn’t been elected, 9/11 very well might not have happened.
From Dictionary.com:
If you meant ‘plausible’ in the sense of definition 2 or 3, sure. If you meant it in the sense of definition 1, you’re just another nutcase.
Evil Captor, the only good I see on this thread is that you showed why an element of right wing talk radio, “the conspiracy”, would not work in a more enlighted setting: the BS detectors are set higher than the ones of the average right talk radio listener. 
I do think the complete story of 911 has not been told yet. However: no reliable evidence has been produced that the administration arranged 911! There is more evidence though, to my early hunch, that the Saudis were more involved -if not in the plot- involved in the cover-up of many leads.
It is interesting to note that Snopes did a 180 on the Arab planes that were allowed by the FBI to fly around the US picking Bin Laden relatives and other Saudi citizens.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
Yes, the flights did happen. But even Snopes backtrack: “hey, no planes left the US, we were right on that!” does not hide the fact that Saudis showed lots of power over the US government by obtaining the privilege to fly on the days during and after 911. A privilege that IMO should be investigated.
Not unable, I’d observe, but unwilling. Such logical arguments are so patently obvious that they need not even be mentioned. Just like a lawyer must object and preserve the point for appeal, unless the reason is so patently obvious the appellate court can just say, “The hell with it; that trial judge really sucks.”
Yup. Ticonderoga.