Sure, I’ll argue. Bring out your evidence. All I’ve read so far is speculation. Try to bring that up in court and they’ll laugh you out.
Bravo! I’m taking notes for the next class. 
Look, either the Administration are too dumb to pull this off, and are trying in their own rather violent and ineffectual way to stop further terrorist attacks, or they are masterminding a conspiracy that gives every indication of making them look too dumb to pull something like this off. Ockham’s razor points me to the first.
Unless it is all a Serbian-Jew-Doublebluff, in case they want you to think that they masterminded the 9/11 plot, but actually didn’t…
The problem with complaints about using a logical argument against such nonsense is really very simple. First, anyone can post some bullshit conspiracy theory and then say, “Prove me wrong”. You link to an article about some right-wing enemies fighting and saying a person has ties to Islamic Terrorist groups. From that you end up with the theory that 9/11 could have been a political tool of the current administration. Do you see the problem here? You want people to disprove something that you have shown no proof for.
Another thing to remember is what took place on 9/11/01. Do you remember Air Force One flying to points all over the nation unsure of what was going on? I remember one of the national news anchors implying that because of this, the president was not a good leader in a time of crisis. Now, if you planned such an event, would you not be prepared for it, take charge and gain every ounce of political capital possible?
Another thing to remember is the number of people who would need to be involved in this and their ability to keep quiet. Taking flight school in the US, hijacking 4 airliners, destroying two of the worlds largest building, flying one into the Pentagon and the people responsible for this have kept it secret? Not one person along the way has been able to make a solid connection and come forward? This will bring about the best part of conspiracy theories, the government had everyone who knew or found out about it killed.
The final nail in the coffin of trying to dispute your claim is that it never works to try and disprove a conspiracy. A conspiracy theory is like a religion, no matter what proof you show to the person that they are deluded, some reason will be found to ignore the truth. Be it killing of witnesses or payoffs or faking evidence, the clever government is always one step ahead and keeps the truth from coming out.
So, in your OP you asked “Whaddya think, is this a trail worth following or what?” and I say no, not if you have more than three brain cells.
I feel like I have lost some brain cells just making a non-comedic reply to such nonsense.
Actually Brutus, the case hardly of nutcase status.
The broad outline is this: At the end of Clinton’s presidency, there was a bipartisan commision with heavy Clinton support whose ongoing conclusions were that there was a real danger of a terrorist attack on the U.S. by Muslim radicals like Al Qaeda. In addition, after the bombing of the Cole, Clinton commisioned Richard Clarke to formulate a plan to take out Al Qaeda. This plan outlined things like breaking up cells and arresting personnel, freezing terrorist assets, and scale up covert action to take out training camps in Afghanistan. A senior Bush aide was quoted in Time magazine as saying that Clarke’s plan was basically “everything we’ve done since 9/11.”
Only, Clarke’s report was presented in Dec 20, 2000, and the Clinton adminstration decided that it could not start such a major operation when they wouldn’t be there to see it through. Bush took office. Sandy Berger personally told Condoleeza Rice that terrorism would be the most important issue facing her (something she later said through a spokesperson that she did not recall, after first declining to comment on the issue).
What happened?
Bush and his people scoffed at and ridiculed the idea of a more unified department of homeland security when the Hart-Rudman commision inspired it.
Clark was kept on, but despite his protests, he was pushed to the sidelines, and outgoing Clinton aides also said that the Bush people coming in thought that Clinton’s people were too obsessed about terrorism. Clinton, remember, was evil, and things him and people that had worked for him were highly suspect.
Besides, there were much more important priorities than goofy terrorist plots. There was missle defense. And fighting medicinal mary jane. Clark and his plans was rebuffed several times, put into commisions, some of which never took place. The day before 9/11, Ashcroft sent out a memo of his seven top priorities. Terrorism wasn’t on it. His budget request inluding spending increases for almost 70 programs. Not a single one was related to pursuing possible domestic terrorists. To say that he wasn’t obsessed with terrorism was an understatement. He was obsessed with defeating cancer patients from smoking weed, and preventing state legislatures from passing laws he didn’t like. But terrorism wasn’t on the radar.
After 9/11, we also had Rice saying that “no one would have ever expected the terrorists to fly planes into buildings.” But either she was lying, or criminally oblivious to her own field. A plot to use hijacked airliners as suicide bombs had been foiled in Europe the year before. And it was explicitly discussed in counterterrorism circles as being a serious danger. For goodness sake: the Clinton administration had itself thwarted a plant to hijack an airliner and fly it into the CIA in 1996. Tenet was even sending memos to the President about credible threats that Bin Laden was planning a major attack, and hijacked airlines were one of the things being talked about. At the time this was going on, however, Bush was busy golfing on one of the longest Presidential vacations in modern history, picking dirt clods out of his shoes. When he came back from his vacation, he threatened to veto a .6 billion Congressional increase of counterrorism funding because it would impinge on the ever so important missle defense (boy, that system came in handy though in the end, right?)
Put simply, it is doubtful that Gore’s administration would have nixed and turned up its nose at all the stuff afoot near the end of Clinton’s Presidency. They had no reason to. And given that they would have retained many of the same people: people who were “too obsessed” with terrorism, these people would have been able to continue with their silly obsession.
And the fact is we came almost painfully close to preventing 9/11 (we arrested Moussaoui, had agents that thought that terrorists were getting flight lessons so that they could use commerical airliners as bombs, etc.): while not certain, a better integration of our intelligence forces could have gotten the necessary information to the correct channels, and moving immediately on Clark’s recommendations to take down Al Qaeda would certianly have turned up lots of information, leads, and might even have netted many of the bombers.
In fact, it’s perhaps even possible that 9/11 would have been prevented if Bush hadn’t taken such a long vacation. Clark’s plan needed Presidential backing, and it spent that vacation time awaiting the President’s attention. They decided to phase it in slowly, starting not with attacks or arrests, but overatures to the Northern Alliance. Even then, the plan sat on his desk, and was sitting there when 9/11 happened.
In conclusion:
of attempts to hijack planes and use it as a bomb by crashing it into American interests foiled by Clinton: 1
of attempts to hijack planes and use it as a bomb by crashing it into American interests foiled by Bush: 0
I’m sure there are counter arguments. But this is no conspiracy theory. There is a very plausible case to be made, as I said, that Gore’s people would have paid far more attention to fighting terrorism than Bush’s people actually did. And there is every reason to think that Bush dropped the ball. Had he not opposed spending more money on counterterrorism efforts, we would have had a much better chance of preventing 9/11.
Why do you think the Bush administration fought tooth and nail to prevent any probe of our intelligence failures? And still fights, albiet more quietly by denying access to documents rather than opposing the very idea outright.
Let me make sure I understand this. Because the very thing that may cost Bush the election, the economy, seems to be missing from this whole equation…
The economy was already on a huge down swing after the election debacle. The stock market plunged and jobs were already being lost.
So the Bush administartion in all it’s glory and wisdom decides the best thing to do is allow/conspire with/be complicit in letting Islamic terrorist to murder several thousand people on American soil so that he can force the economy into even deeper recession?
Does anyone deny that 9/11 brought our economy to its knees? And this is good for Bush how?
The big hole in your theory is that there is absolutely no evidence that G.W. is mentally ill. You can argue that he’s mentally deficient if you’d like, but psychotic, paranoid and devoid of a conscience? Give me a break. Cite?
Hitler didn’t start out slaughtering Jews, he evolved into that person. And you can find clear and convincing evidence of his disintegration into paranoid psychosis throughout his life. You’re arguing that Bush could have committed an atrocity against his own people without any evidence that he is mentally ill.
And one doesn’t plan to murder thousands of innocent people in order to further one’s career without being mentally ill, right?
In fact, the evidence I have seen offers proof that Bush is NOT capable of such an amoral act. He clearly loves his parents and his wife. His mother was one of the most universally loved first ladies in history. His wife is a warm, loving woman who speaks adoringly of her husband and his good heart. And his daughters are screwed up just enough to convince me that their father is normal.
So, where is the evidence that he is a nutcase?? Because you don’t plan the murder of several thousand innocent people without being a fucking nutcase.
Had he, maybe, could have, possibly. That’s a lot of vague modifiers for such a strong conclusion.
If Clarke’s plan was put into effect early, exactly what effect would it have had upon the terrorists? They were already in the country, they already had money to support them, they were already taking flying lessons. Unless someone specifically had these people in mind and felt a need to round them up- which there is no evidence of, even in discussing the ignored FBI report there is only vague allusions to “this may be happing somewhere, somewhen”, the plan was already in motion and ready to go even as Clark was giving this plan to Clinton.
Likewise, if Clark’s plan is “everything we’ve been doing since 911”, then I assume it includes massive undertakings like the Department of Homeland Security, increased FBI surveillance, and all the other items that have been screamed about by Democrats as an injust destruction of our civil liberties. The only reason that there has been the political will to accomplish these things is because of 911. Saying, “Well, these things should have been done before” is all well and good but means bupkus when the average citizens doesn’t want to lose those rights or spend that tax money. The US should have gotten involved in World War II in 1939, but that doesn’t mean I think FDR was a dangerous tool for not having jumped in on the declaration of war on Germany on September 1st.
Finally, if Bush deserves any blame, then Clinton deserves even more- the first terrorist attack against the WTC was in 1993, and between that, the Cole bombing, and the desultory missle throws at bin Laden in '98, Clinton had five years to wake up to the threat of bin Laden and terrorism to Bush’s one.
We could have caught them.
Really, vibro?
Please specify exactly which parts of Clark’s plan would have led to any of the terrorists being caught at some point before 9/11.
Actually, Norquist is widely acknowledged to be an influential figure in conservative figures generally, with a ton of clout with the Bush administration – their domestic economic agenda is pretty much based on Norquist’s ideas. Here’s a link:
**Trying to link Norquist to 9/11 on this evidence does not even raise, in legal terms, a reasonable suspicion, much less Rove. **
Norquist set up the Islamic Institute. It has since been proven to have terrorist fundraisers deeply involved in it. It’s hard to prove what degree of cooperation Norquist engaged in with those terrorists, but it’s entirely reasonable to be suspicious.
**This is crazy talk. Simply put, politicians don’t commit mass murder of potential voters very often in a democracy. What you are alleging could be termed defamatory. Lucky for you Rove is a public figure. **
You’re right, U.S. politicians don’t commit mass murder of their own people very often. But Repubican administrations of late, specificially rhe Reagan and Nixon administrations, have a history of criminality. I would argue that Bush stole the 2000 election as well. I guess that theft has left me kinda … open-minded … about the evil that Bush might get up to.
You’re not describing the OP accurately. I did not defy people to prove the theory wrong, I said, “Here’s an interesting bit of speculation, is this a trail worth following?” People could then say they thought it would be a waste of time or not, based on thier perceptions. Most seem to think it a waste of time, and I’m OK with that. I wasn’t seeking an outcome here, but additional opinions and ideas. I got those.
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.
The only onus I feel here is to present my speculation as strongly as possible, and to solicit ideas that support or detract from it. Once again, this is speculation. I’m under no requirement to prove speculative ideas, merely to examine them.
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.
Well, yeah, but that’s all I was saying in my OP … the channels exist there, isn’t it worth investigating further to find out what might have flowed over those channels?
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.
They’re not meaningless, they address the issue of motive very strongly.
**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. **
The Dems have done too many spineless rollovers for Bush to make me think they have any real fight in them at all.
Well, here’s an idea: investigate the fundraising and keep an eye out for any evidence that any backchannel conspiratorial information flowed in and out of the Bush Administration via Norquist, while you’re investigating the fundraising.
Wonder if there’s any army of bloggers out there anywhere that might be interested …
That claim doesn’t hold water when you realize that the Clinton Administration was the most vigilant in fighting terrorism than any previous President’s:
And yet, for some reason, I never see conservative pundits give Clinton his due credit for his anti-terrorism efforts. I wonder why?
Evil Captor: If you submit a preposterous premise, you should expect sarcarstic responses, not be offended by them.
Since it seems you only want to know if “this trail is worth following” I’ll leave out the wise cracks and say no, it is not worth following.
I believe I do. You don’t think my speculative path is one worth following. I’m cool with that.
I do not think my premise is preposterous. But I’m not offended that people don’t feel compelled to go along on my speculative flight. However, there’s not much I can do with a discussion that consists of the verbal equivalent of whirling your fingers around the side of your head and making sputtering noises, which is what most of the “tinfoil hat” posts consist of. They’re undoubtedly an accurate reflection of the poster’s feelings, but I kinda have to let that be their problem.
First of all, I didn’t posit that Bush necessarily knew of it, if it happened, I could see Rove, Cheney, Rumfeld or some combo of the three keeping it under their hats. And hey, SOMEBODY in the Bush admin is hardened enough to deliberately blow the cover of covert CIA agents vis a vis the Plame Affair, so I don’t think I’m gonna be giving you any breaks.
reptiles