Their Theories of Mass Delusion

Lately, some people have been entertaining the idea that President Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand and refused to do anything about it. There happens to be two branches of this argument: the first is a somewhat legitimate belief that the Administration was provided a memo having to do with Bin Laden and his determination to attack within the United States. The second argument is the conspiracy theorist belief that Bush and or the government was privy to the actual details of the plot and possibly assisted in the execution of that plot. I will preface the following paragraphs by stating that President Bush and the Administration were, in no way, part of or responsible for the attacks of September 11th 2001.

There is a legitimate argument, at least in the mind of some democrats, that since the President was provided a memo stating, Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States, he somehow holds responsibility for the attacks. However, as any fair-minded person will acknowledge, the President most responsible for the attacks of 9/11 is, without a doubt, Bill Clinton [
His failures led to 9-11]. With that obvious truth out of the way we can move to why some people think one memo about Bin Laden is a reason to blame the current administration for others failures. For a moment I will take their argument seriously and examine what the outcome would have been if prior to 9/11 Bush acted on that memo. To examine what might have happened in that case we first have to look to the present.

Democrats do not support efficiently tracking terrorists through the NSA’s terrorist surveillance program. Democrats do not support the Patriot Act in any of its forms. The Democrats do not support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war nor do they support violating a brutal dictators sovereignty; According to Dems arguments, since Iraq was technically a sovereign country that gave Hussein the right to commit genocide. And they vehemently oppose the necessary terrorist-fighting method of racial profiling. Given that reality, what would the Democrats have supported in terms of the war on terrorism prior to the actual events of September 11th. They hate the necessary modifications in U.S. policy today and we are at war. So, if the President acted on this memo, what actions would the Democrats have supported? No surveillance, no pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan; because we know that the left would not support taking out terrorists if there is a possibility of collateral damage…so that’s out. What about profiling Arab males in Airports throughout the country…Nope! Not something the democrats would have supported. So what prey tell should have been done in regards to this memo? Should the President have pushed for a type of Patriot Act that would allow more leeway in combating terrorism? If he did that it would have been filibustered by the opposition party. Should he have launched a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan on the basis of a memo? Or perhaps the CIA should have used more “illegal” means in their counter terrorism methodology? We all know how unrealistic the left is when it comes to covert operations and coercive interrogation. And that leads me to the question that I asked a couple of weeks ago that the left refused to directly answer. Would you have supported, knowing what we know now, the interrogation tactic of torture or coercive interrogation to extract information from Zacarias Moussaoui, who knew the actual detail of the 9/11 plot? I would. I hear the constant nay saying and the lack of ideas from Democrats and frankly it’s tiresome. It’s time to wake up and stop pretending that you would have supported realisitc action on the basis of that memo.

Moving on to the conspiracy theory that has Bush or members of his Administration being involved in the plot or execution of 9/11. Occasionally a nutter comes by and posts a comment claiming that the planes used on that day were equipped with bombs or missiles. Or that the twin towers collapsed due to precision explosives placed inside the towers. The people who believe this nonsense happen to be lean left politically…not really a surprise huh? Anyway, their claim is that Bush and the Bin Laden family were in cahoots and they planned the attacks for reasons only known to them. And then of course we have the theory that Bush planned the attacks on 9/11 for oil. They think that Bush used 9/11 so he could go to war in Iraq and steal their oil and to also enrich Halliburton. I like to call these people the Bill Maher audience or the Daily Show audience. Believe me when I say that there are a lot more of these nuts than people think. Anyway, let’s review their theories of mass delusion. First, it makes no sense that the Government would orchestrate the terrorist attacks of 9/11. If that was the case why would the government attack not only a huge economic center but the Pentagon? The plot consisted of attacks on major centers including the White House. I doubt the government would attack themselves. Lol. Moving on to the theory that explosives were used to bring down the towers. I’m not an engineering expert but that theory is impossible. Precision explosives need wiring and firing mechanisms and of course the explosive itself. We know that the fires inside the buildings were so intense that they actually melted steel wrapped in fireproofing. That means that if there happened to be explosives and wiring it would have melted them as well. The explosive theory would also suggest that the government worked hand in hand with Al Qaeda to execute the strikes. As for the explosives on the wings of the planes…those are engines. In any case, I hope that helps.