[lbo-talk] A question ... about 9/11 (and other responses)

Jordan Hayes jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com
Tue Aug 22 13:00:09 PDT 2006


Ravi says:


> I think the most plausible explanation is that Atta and gang with
> financial support from Al Qaeda and some small amount of training,
> were able to exploit the disinterest of the Bush administration to
> fly large planes into buildings, causing [some of] them to collapse.

Why is it that you think this is the most plausible explaination?

Isn't it more plausible that adding 'to exploit the disinterest of the Bush administration' makes it a) more complicated and b) thus less plausible? I do agree that al Queda (as much as any dedicated opponent of the US) has a history of jujitsu-style attack mechanisms, and anyone wanting to carry out a plan like this would do themselves a disservice to not consider weaknesses in such a plan.

But: simple disinterest doesn't make you complicit.

Key to your line of questioning (and your explicit statement above) is that somehow "the Bush administration" was critical in/to the project, and that, for instance, such a plan could/would not have been carried out under, say, the Clinton presidency. Much has been made of the aimlessness of the first eight months of GW's first term, but it seems to me that he was as distracted -- or disinterested, if you will -- about the specific issues (i.e., those pointed out by Richard Clarke) as Clinton was during the final 8 months of his second term.

So it comes down to: do you or don't you believe that 9/11 could have happened in the same way on 9/11/2000?


> I am personally puzzled by a few things, which could stem
> from my own misunderstanding (Hence my words: What am I
> missing? Is blah-blah easier than *I think*?).

I think others have listed some pretty good sources that, at least for me, completely debunk any of the puzzling aspects of this issue. But the simple answer (aren't you looking for that?) is yes: what they did was in many ways easier than you think.


> may I suggest that the problem lies in the need to slot me in
> one or the other [typically binary] grouping?

No, you may not.

And you also may not use the word 'slot' as a verb. :-/

/jordan



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list