9/11 Conspiracies

Of all the things about 9/11 I've seen, the worst is the people who continually belive that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Bush administration actually wanted the World Trade center hit so that it would propel the United States into war. To what purpose would Bush do such a thing? I have heard any number of crazy theories, but the one that stands out most in my mind was that Bush engaged in war to eventually strike at Iraq and "finish what Daddy started" or "get revenge for Daddy."

I first heard this at the Matthew Shephard Symposium in 2002. One of our guest speakers, a prominent member of LGBT movement, spoke in harshly critical tones of Bush's war in Afghanistan, Bush's pushing for war in Iraq, and even Bush's tax cuts. In this talk, I heard the speaker say that Bush was pushing for tax cuts to "do what Daddy failed to do, no matter how it will hurt the economy", and that Bush was pushing for war in Iraq to "finish what Daddy started." I left the symposium feeling utterly disgusted. I felt sorry for Matthew Shephard, a nice person who's murder is now being used to fuel a movement fraught with people who would pull down Bush at any cost.

I suppose, though, that to truly overcome my outrage at people who believe that 9/11 is an inside job, I must first try to understand these people. To a large extent, these people see Bush as the devil incarnate. This I don't necessarily understand right away, since I'm exactly sure when all this fervent hatred began. Certainly there was plenty of vitriol concerning the 2000 election, and all the claims that "Bush stole the election."

All right, I've examined the 2000 elections, and with every recount of votes in Florida, Bush won. The recounting would have continued indefinitely had it been allowed, for Gore would not have backed down, and he never would have reached the number of votes needed to win. The very fact that the Supreme Court had to step in and halt the recount nonsense should be a great sense of shame to all Americans, not just Floridians, but certainly for the Democratic party. I understand the outrage--to the Democrats, Bush's victory must feel like a bad penalty called with 0:06 left in the fourth quarter that costs the home team a chance at victory. I understand that very well--Wyoming lost several close games under similary circumstances.

Since many people feel the presidency is tied up with all the changes in the nation (instead of blaming the real culprits in Congress), I suppose it is understandable that they would feel strongly about who is in the presidency. For some, I suppose it is the distinction between a life of ease and a life grueling labor. But honestly, Congress still has more power than the president, and they're the ones who pass bills. Bush just signs them into law. Just look at how Bush practically begged Congress to pass some bills to aid in the War on Terror--because he cannot pass them himself. For all people's talk about a monarchy, Bush still has to go to Congress to get things done.

9/11 galvanized the nation, at least for a span of a few days. And yet it did not take long for people to start muttering about Bush's warmongering. And by the time the Iraq war was a year old, people were talking about American Imperialism, how we shouldn't be in Iraq, and so on. The common factor among all these complaints is: we don't want to have to expend the effort. And these people proffer the following excuse: our soldiers are dying in the truckloads; we need international approval; who are we to say that we should impose democracy on other nations; this is just Bush's religious war against Islam.

I'm not going to delve into social commentary--I'll save that for some other day. But needless to say, it seems to me that those who are social relativists--the ones who continually suggest we need to talk with the terrorists--are so infuriated by Bush because Bush pulls them out of their little, insulated worlds into the real world. These people do not want to acknoweldge the terrorists as a threat because that would mean actually doing something about it at personal risk. That includes the loss of finances, the loss of opportunities, and even the loss of family, friends, or self.

Ultimately, the fervent hatred of Bush stems from this. Bush is not willing to make concessions to the enemy so that the people of the United States can remain insulated from the dangers of the real world a few days more. Bush realizes that freedom must ever and always be fought for. His critics do not. They believe that freedom was won long ago, and now we just get to reap the benefits without ever lifting another finger. When Bush says that we still have to work for our freedom, the outrage ensues.