I welcome criticism, but it should address this question:
How could the administration have possibly sold the public on this war if there had been no 9/11?
How do you respond to claims made by Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney- about Iraq having a role in 9/11 and having the capability to attack American cities,
with statements suggesting that doing so would prevent MORE terror attacks. The terror of 9/11 and its political carte blanche for the President are
the reason we are there. This is "the new Pearl Harbor" the war's early planners needed- and then it happens under Bush's watch? Bush's concern
is not American lives. It is power and serving the wishes of his corporate masters. Once one accepts that Bush does not value human life, the question
becomes "Why would he want to stop it?" Before September 11, we were all complacent. If the FBI had announced the foiling of a terrorist plot- it
would have been a footnote in the papers- and Bush would still be dogged by doubts of his fitness for office. This is like a poor man conning a rich
woman, marrying her, then when she dies, inheriting a fortune and being free of a marriage he hated. Bush and his radical agenda gained so much from
9/11, that it would be foolish NOT to consider them suspects.
Their opposition to investigating 9/11 since it would be a distraction from the War on Terror reminds me of the old joke about the kid who murdered
his parents, then threw himself on the mercy of the Court, on the grounds that he was an orphan.
so answer this:
How could the administration have possibly sold the public on this war if there had been no 9/11?


