Think you Know Everything There is to Know About 911?

[CommanderMcBragg]

It's ridiculous. I don't blame the current administration anymore than I blame the previous administration for what happened to the WTC, etc., before. The only thing I don't like is the way the former administration didn't really do jack- about it. By basically letting *them* get away with it, it pretty much gave them the freedom to continue doing so without fear of serious consequences.

Are you a flip-flopper too? You say you don't blame the previous administration and then you turn around and criticize them for doing "jack- " about it?
They didn't let "them" get away with it.
I don't blame the current administration either and you can trace terrorism back way before the previous administration.

Don't forget how chummy Rummy and Reagan were with Saddam. Who didn't even have anything to do with 9/11 anyways.

Are you serious? They don't fear the consequences anyway!!

If they did, you wouldn't have suicide bombers!!?

[SpursWoman]

No, I'm not a "flip-flopper". I don't blame them for it happening like all of the conspiracy theorists are insinuating that Bush and his administration are responsible for 9/11.

I just don't like how the former administration didn't do anything to dissuade future attacks.

But then maybe you really can't win it entirely...but what you can do is remove the Saddam's of the world and the people who finance them.

Are you serious? They don't fear the consequences anyway!!

If they did, you wouldn't have suicide bombers!!?

Good point. Especially since they use their own woman and children.


So what do you do? The "ignore it and maybe it will go away" stategy didn't work.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I think SW was trying to say she didn't lay blame for the precursors to the attack on Clinton, just blamed him for not responding for tat...

There's a great book by Bernard Lewis, one of modern history's great Muslim scholars, laying out in detail how Clinton's inaction after WTC bombing #1 fueled the AQ fire, momentum, recruiting, etc. and emboldened them for a second attack to finish what they failed at the first time.

But seeings it's not written by some democratic underground site or CBS flunkie news anchor, I doubt y'all would give it any credence.

[Nbadan]

Now, now, moderates and progressives tend to be much more open-minded than Conservatives. The U.S. was not on a war footing against terrorism under the Clinton administration, that much is true, but that war footing also wasn't exactly being mobilized under the first year of W either. That is, unless you lend to the belief like the author of this theory does that the PNAC plan all along was to get the U.S. mobilized through a dramatic attack.

What's amazing is the number of foreigners, Europeans and South and Central Americans who think that the U.S. government had something to do with 911. Polls easily exceed 50%. However, I haven't seen any U.S. polls on this theory, but they probably run about less than 20%, maybe even less than 15%.

The other theory in the article, that the world maybe at peak oil now, or within the next year, I think is probably about right given that there weren't any major wells found in 2003 and so far none in 2004. With that in mind, opening up the second largest oil reserve in the world was no longer just a luxury to the world. However, Iraq's oil infrastructure was in a lot worse shape than the Americans thought. Going in they thought it would take a couple of years to rebuild most of the major wells, now the projections are closer to 4 - 5 years, and that is without any terrorists attacks and hostage takings. Many American oil and shipping contractors have simply given up in Iraq for now and come back home.