Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by seachange
They have script writers, and if one told him to tell the story with a kid tugging on his waist saying, "What happened Mr. President?" He would have added that into the story...
Two things make the script-writer idea difficult, and let me know if you disagree on either. Firstly, a child was asking the question. Children make bad actors, and therefore that makes the overall process more difficult than for example having an adult ask the question. Secondly, there would have had to be no fact-checking involved to make sure the script was actually possible without Bush being "in on 9/11". I didn't say impossible, but I said difficult. Certainly it is within the realm of possibility. For you, you consider it within the realm of reasonable doubt. Personally, I put it outside the realm of reasonable doubt, and I do that on pure intuition.
I think the scenario you present is the only viable alternative to Bush being "in on it". However, there is a serious problem with your alternative. Your alternative means that when Bush answers questions, he is entirely ignoring any and all truth and focusing entirely on what response will get the most 'political points'. That in turn means that Bush is extremely dishonest to the core, and will do what he needs to do to accomplish what he wants.
So, here is an important question. Is someone who cares zero for the truth in favor of political points the type of person who may also not mind killing 3,000 people for political points?


