|
Clinton can't get a BJ without everyone knowing it, so I give low confidence in the "inside job" theory. I haven't studied the Bd7 explanation, or can't recall anything on it anymore. I have spent about an equal amount of time listening to explanations for inside job, and the rebuttal.
I was 3 weeks into my 20th year when I listened to news interrupt on the transparent FM radio I had purchased on prison commissary, at around 5am. Having never followed the news, I didn't know how frequently terrorists attacked and took out whole buildings, so I had no calibrated notion for the magnitude of the event.
My hindsight informs that my voting for GWB twice (only presidential candidate I've ever voted for) was foolish, and that the attitude of the local chapter of the college republicans at the time mostly shared the same bad instincts on what stance to take. When it came time to elect the College Republican president, I voted for the charismatic and likeable guy who more resembled Bush in character than the guy who was more intelligent, more informed, and more rationally motivated.
So, being dragged into countries of no interest on false pretenses and making an enemy out of citizens by depriving them of their right to privacy and property, as well as setting the spending trajectory towards inevitable catastrophe was the catalyst to abandon party affiliation and stick to the issues.
Terrorism is still a useful designation despite the recent trend to label everything as such. Flying a plane into a civilian building knowing it will do nothing to overthrow the US, but only kill infidels in exchange for 72 virgins falls somewhere more distinct than crime or war. Terrorism seems appropriate.
|