Reply #46: Well... [View All]

[SDuderstadt]

It, by itself, does not prove LIHOP, if that's what you're getting at. However, at the very least, it does demonstrate that Bush is an idiot who should never have been elected...wait, I mean appointed...in 2000. But without corroborating evidence that shows that Bush deliberately let 9/11 happen, that's about all we've got, as if that's bad enough in its own right. In order to embrace LIHOP without something else, one would have to believe that Bush could have gauged the response to a national catastrophe as one that could only favor him, when it could easily have sunk his presidency. Look where he is today. Reviled not only at home, but around the world.

Imagine that Gore would have ultimately prevailed in 2000 and, thus, received that PDB. Let's say he did everything he could, but 9/11 happened anyhow. Let's also say that, for national security reasons, he could not disclose some of the actions he had taken (I'm not implying Gore would do anything illegal...unlike W, he has respect for the constitution). Under the exact same circumstances that occurred on 9/11, would you allege LIHOP? I certainly wouldn't.

I, like even many of you, was suspicious after 9/11, but as the evidence comes out, the case for LIHOP just isn't there. If and when that evidence presents itself, I'll be the first one to join up. But, you just don't have it.