Conservatives and 9/11... questions I wonder about...

[Darkhawk32]

I do wonder if it somehow, someday all the tin-foil hat suspicions were true and GWB/Cheney and Company ordered and orchestrated the attacks on 9/11, would the right-wing in this country feel outraged?

It allowed the conservative movement to implement tax cuts, corporate welfare, the re-election of GWB (allegedly), allowed the natural right-wing racism to become mainstream policy and the shredding of something they secretly loathe - the Constitution.

Beyond the outward appearance of shock and outrage, how do you think they'd really feel? Do you think it would skew their political bent? Do you think it would change their voting habits? Do you think they would realize the folly in their unabashed jingoism?

Just something I wonder.

[ProgressoDem]

1. They'd come up with some crazy rationalization.

Probably their standard go-to line for right-wing terrorism:

"It was just an isolated incident!"

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RZM]

3. I think they would be hopping mad

For several reasons. First and foremost they'd be mad that they were lied to by their leaders. Then they'd be mad that the conspiracy theorists were right. Finally they'd be mad because the left would benefit from it.

But, that is all a fantasy scenario, because the Bush crew did not orchestrate 9/11, though they certainly used it to advance their own goals. Though had Gore been president, he would have used 9/11 too. Not to wage war, but probably to usher in some sort of transformation to a 'kinder, gentler, more vigilant' US foreign policy. LIHOP and MIHOP are both bullshit conpiracy theories. They are for morons and others who just can't accept reality.

I'm a little concerned about all of this conspiracy mongering on DU today. I'm looking forward to it going away.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Just a note

Conspiracy is a word with a very definite LEGAL meaning. There is one, and all the connection to 911 is that this day allowed for it to proceed...but legally it would fit the definition... The legal definition.

[RZM]

9. This isn't the semantics olympics here

They used the event to advance their goals. It's not like the neocons were hiding the fact that they wanted to 'finish the job' in Iraq. Everybody already knew that's what they wanted. They took what happened and used it for their own purposes. What the conspiracy theorists can't seem to understand is that they were simply doing what governments everywhere do -- seizing opportunities and chances to advance their agenda. For some bizarre reason, these idiots have turned that logic around to argue that 'no, they couldn't possibly have just seized the opportunity, they MADE IT HAPPEN' despite the fact that there is very little evidence to indicate that.

It's not rocket science here. Life is random - it's full of unexpected events and unforseen circumstances. Leaders know that the key to getting what you want is rolling with what happens and making the best of it. That's what the Bush clique did. End of story.

Note, I'm not calling the OP and idiot. But I most certainly am calling LIHOP and MIHOP people idiots. This has been exhaustively studied from every angle. We know what happened here. Those who choose not to accept the truth are part of that x percent of the population that just won't accept reality.

[Darkhawk32]

10. I'm not a LIHOP or MIHOP person. Just posing a question regarding...

the psyche of the conservative mind.

[RZM]

16. I understand that. I'm not trying to inult you here

I just get a bit worked when it comes to truther stuff. I guess I'm like them in the fact that I believe I know what the truth is. Of course, I've got consensus on my side, so that's a bit comforting ;)

I think truther-ism is less about 9/11 and more about worldviews and that's what I don't like about it. They are trying to pound a square peg of events into their own round hole about how they think things work and I just don't think that's correct.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Conservatives without a conscience

By John dean... Eric hoofer true believervand on the nature of mass movements also has part of the answer.

There is more specialized readying. Suffice it to say modern us politics, more on the right but with the democrats, have taken on aspects of mass movements, especially with the far right. IMHO. They would have ignored it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. That type of conspiracy is a war crime

And it is not semantics. It's a very specific usage of the word...conspiracy to engage in aggressive war. Nuremberg War Crimes to be specific.

So the I am tired of conspiracies and only crazy people hold them, helps them.

[RZM]

13. But aren't conspiracies secret?

The neocons made no secret about wanting to take down Saddam. We all knew that's what they wanted. They never hid it before or after 9/11. They simply used 9/11 to argue that now was the time. It was bullshit to argue that, but it's not like we didn't see it coming.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. No. Mein kampf made no secret of it's desire for war

Either.

[RZM]

21. That's true. Hitler made no secret about wanting to acquire living space at the expense of the USSR

But tellingly, the Nazis kept the actual details of the holocaust pretty close to their chests. It wasn't until around Aug./Sept. 1941 that their policy towards European Jews assumed one of total genocide. There is no single document that says 'kill all the Jews,' which is one reason why despicable fuckheads like David Irving can earn a living peddling horseshit.

But that's neither here nor there in our discussion. The neocons wanted to invade Iraq. That doesn't mean they caused 9/11 . . . it just means they pounced upon it to enact their longstanding plans. What the truthers can't seem to grasp is the fact that they were waiting for events to make the climate right, not the other way around.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. I did not say they caused it

As to the final solution...that was ANOTHER indictment. That was War Crimes.

What I said is that they took advantage to carry out plans. Page 47 of the PNAC manifesto is quite damming to any court and it is a conspiracy in every legal sense of the word...not that I expect this prosecution. Even if there should be one.

[RZM]

23. I'm not saying you said that

Actually I think we are in total agreement here. The PNAC crew would agree with both of us as well. They wanted Iraq and 9/11 gave them an opening. Bush actually began the sabre rattling against Saddam on 9/12 or 9/13 (I can't remember which).

If you're arguing that them wanting that is a damning thing, who cares about 9/11 in that context? The fault is in doing it, not when they did it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. I am making another more nuanced argument

Conspiracy has become a dirty word. Notice who is doing it? Linguistically that cuts an avenue to a legal argument. Yes, language changes...The word gay is a perfect example. But here they are trying to make fun of the word. Why I bristle.

[RZM]

25. Well that's a lost semantic argument

'Conspiracy Theory' means bullshit nowadays. But you're right, there have been conspiracies that were all too real. Hell, HBO made a movie about the Wannsee Conference called 'Conspiracy,' with the bald-headed wonder Stanley Tucci as Eichmann no less.

It's sort of like railing against the 'margins' that the oil companies reap even though oil is a 'volume' business. It's how it goes, I guess ;)

[Darkhawk32]

5. This post was not to promote conspiracy theories.

[RZM]

7. Did you read the OP?'

'if it somehow, someday all the tin-foil hat suspicions were true and GWB/Cheney and Company ordered and orchestrated the attacks on 9/11'

That sounds pretty conspiracy-ey to me.

Here's what the argument boils down to. The OP is speculating that 'what if they really did it . . . it certainly served their goals.'

All I'm saying is that they didn't do it, but still used it to advance their goals. It's called opportunism and is one of the core tenets of governance. Other maxims that apply would be 'rolling with it,' 'making do with the cards you were dealt,' 'making the best of it,' etc. They took what happened and used it for their own purposes. That's a pretty common thing.

[Darkhawk32]

8. I think I read the OP. Because I wrote it. lol :)

I was promoting a hypothetical, that's all.

Hypothetical questions can be scary sometimes. ;)

[RZM]

12. LOL. I apologize for that

I understand you are proposing a hypothetical situation. But it's the same hypothetical the nuts argue is the undeniable truth.

My position is pretty clear. The fact that they benefited from it doesn't meant that they did it. If I put 500K on '00' on the roulette wheel it doesn't mean that I manipulated the game. I just means I got lucky ;)

[Darkhawk32]

14. I don't think they did either and yes, they benefited from it.

But I'm asking about the nuts on the other side. lol

[TeamsterDem]

6. They're impervious to facts. You could have it on videotape and they'd rationalize it. nt

[treestar]

15. If they found out that were true

They would support the attacks themselves. They would justify the attacks themselves.

[TeamsterDem]

19. I had a guy tell me once "if the US turned NAZI I'd slap a swastika on my arm"

I nearly vomited. I did tell him what I thought of him which led to some physical restraining on both sides (our respective friends). How anyone could even say that is both a mystery and incredibly offensive. It was during the post-9/11 hysteria but nothing explains or excuses a comment like that.

So yeah, they'd support anything if their party did it. Anything.

[Darkhawk32]

20. Had a friend tell me that if 9/11 were to happen, he was glad that it ...

happened to New York.