Great responses, Taxi. 
Once again, I agree with some of your more general points (the corporate rule of America -- and, increasingly, the world -- in particular), even if I have a much different opinion on the specifics; especially the Pentagon, since I was there (actually on the lawn at the Pentagon, forward of the media encampment) during the week following the attack and have some experience at aircraft crash rescue/recovery sites.
Oh, and incidentally, dozens of people used the word "missile" to describe what they saw when TWA Flight 800 went down in 1996 -- another crash that I was present at (albeit during the recovery phase only, starting at about a week after the actual crash). I think it's just a common theme. That incident sparked the whole ridiculous conspiracy theory about a U.S. Navy destroyer shooting down the plane, if you recall.
Back to your other answers, I'm still fuzzy on whether or not you believe that members of the Bush administration or corporate officials DIRECTLY planned or facilitated any of the attacks -- but that's perhaps my fault for not phrasing the question better.
What I wanted to know was whether you felt any of these individuals helped facilitate the attacks (processing passports, looking the other way when presented with intelligence about the attacks, etc.) in a deliberate and intentional manner; knowing what the results would be.
Did any of them think, "Yeah, sure there will be some attacks or something, but it benefits me/my company so it's okay"?
I do agree that the Cheney/Haliburton connection is just too obvious to ignore, but I think it's a case of simple favoritism (still wrong and unethical) rather than devious plotting to increase shares/holdings/bling. I bet Dick would justify it by saying, "Well, hell, I was the CEO of the company for XX years ... I know how well it works, and I know they're capable of getting the job done. Let's go with them."
Like you said ... it's just business. Another thing I agree with -- so much of what happens, in my opinion, really is just business. It's the nature of things. Power is collected and centralized among power-brokers, until there is a revolution and the power is redistributed. Then it pools again toward new (or sometimes former) power-brokers, and the cycle repeats.
I think this is easier for people to understand if they spend a significant amount of time around folks who are considered to have come from "old money."
Once again, I agree with some of your more general points (the corporate rule of America -- and, increasingly, the world -- in particular), even if I have a much different opinion on the specifics; especially the Pentagon, since I was there (actually on the lawn at the Pentagon, forward of the media encampment) during the week following the attack and have some experience at aircraft crash rescue/recovery sites.
Oh, and incidentally, dozens of people used the word "missile" to describe what they saw when TWA Flight 800 went down in 1996 -- another crash that I was present at (albeit during the recovery phase only, starting at about a week after the actual crash). I think it's just a common theme. That incident sparked the whole ridiculous conspiracy theory about a U.S. Navy destroyer shooting down the plane, if you recall.
Back to your other answers, I'm still fuzzy on whether or not you believe that members of the Bush administration or corporate officials DIRECTLY planned or facilitated any of the attacks -- but that's perhaps my fault for not phrasing the question better.
What I wanted to know was whether you felt any of these individuals helped facilitate the attacks (processing passports, looking the other way when presented with intelligence about the attacks, etc.) in a deliberate and intentional manner; knowing what the results would be.
Did any of them think, "Yeah, sure there will be some attacks or something, but it benefits me/my company so it's okay"?
I do agree that the Cheney/Haliburton connection is just too obvious to ignore, but I think it's a case of simple favoritism (still wrong and unethical) rather than devious plotting to increase shares/holdings/bling. I bet Dick would justify it by saying, "Well, hell, I was the CEO of the company for XX years ... I know how well it works, and I know they're capable of getting the job done. Let's go with them."
Like you said ... it's just business. Another thing I agree with -- so much of what happens, in my opinion, really is just business. It's the nature of things. Power is collected and centralized among power-brokers, until there is a revolution and the power is redistributed. Then it pools again toward new (or sometimes former) power-brokers, and the cycle repeats.
I think this is easier for people to understand if they spend a significant amount of time around folks who are considered to have come from "old money."
