Quote:It's not my argument.  It's your argument.  The argument that you and other member of the left have made is that DUE TO PROFIT MOTIVE members of the bush administration willfully allowed the planes to hit the towers on nine eleven to start their "PET" wars.  I am simply pointing out that this argument doesn't hold water because you would have to count on a dictator in a foreign country who has no financial or personal interest in said war to cooperate with the run up over an 18 month period that would culminate in his death by hanging!  

 

The argument is fundamentally absurd.  Furthermore, this obsession with Profit motive is a little bit silly.  The Bush family has been wealthy for a while, the Walker family has been part of the country's elite for longer than i can remember.  Bobby Jones played on the WALKER CUP team for crying out loud.  And contrary to popular belief, oil has been profitable for a long time.  If Bush's sole motivation was to drum up the price of oil, then why did he implement the policies that lead to increased exploration on private lands that has lead to one of the biggest long term depreciation cycles  in the history of the commodity?

 

If someone wants to disagree with the policy of invading Iraq then that's fine.  We can argue about long term stability and cost risk analysis all the day is long and there are some credible arguments to be made for pursuing a different strategy.  In the case of Afghanistan, the idea that they were a training ground and harbored terrorists connected with a plot of that magnitude constituted and act of war and couldn't go unanswered even if the plot was thwarted on 9/10.  

 

The idea that this was a conscious decision would be like someone saying that the slow response to Katrina was a weapon of Mass Destruction against black people or something.  oh wait, some far left crazies tried to make that argument too what am i thinking about?