You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #67: I see four reasons to favor the theory that the Bush administration had [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-02-06 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. I see four reasons to favor the theory that the Bush administration had
Edited on Thu Mar-02-06 08:28 PM by Time for change
the explosives planted rather than the Clinton administration:

1) Motive: I disagree with you that motive doesn't constitute evidence. It's a different kind of evidence than physical evidence, but it's evidence nevertheless. Certainly detectives who investigate crimes for a living consider motive to be an important clue, though it can never constitute proof in and of itself.

And I also disagree with you when you say that Bush didn't want to invade Afghanistan. They had plans for that long before 9-11, and it was important to them because they wanted the Unocal pipeline deal to go through.

2) Capacity: The Bush administration has proven its ruthlessness over and over again. And if you say that that doesn't constitute evidence, I disagree. Why shouldn't it constitute evidence? If mother Theresa and Hitler were alone in a room, and a dead body was discovered, and they both accused the other of the murder, who would you believe, regardless of what other evidence was available?

3) It fits with the whole story. You have to consider the whole context. The government response to the 9-11 attacks was so incompetent (that is, if they weren't complicit) that it strains credulity. You note yourself how unsatisfactory their explanation for their failure to defend the capital is.

Also, you haven't responded to my question about how the conversation between Minetta and Cheney fits in, except to say that maybe the time given for their meeting was off a little. But if the time was off, then what sense does Minetta's testimony make?

4) The motivation for the Clinton administration doing this seems quite bizarre to me. You ask me what I would have done. That's difficult to answer with certainty because I don't have all the facts. But I would assume that the likelihood of the towers toppling over horizontally (or coming down at all in the absence of explosives) would have been considered to be so low that it wouldn't have been worth even considering. And how many additional people would have died had they toppled over horizontally. Twice as many? I have no idea. But if the explosives had gone off sooner then perhaps tens of thousands would have died.


And against all that, what evidence is there to suggest that the Clinton administration had the explosives planted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC