Why are liberals trying to rewrite history?

Question

I constantly hear liberals talk about their 9/11 conspiracy theories. They make it sound like the JFK assassination. I really believe that in 20 years people will blame Bush more than Muslim terrorists for killing thousands of Americans. Why do liberal crazies do this? Can't they rationally debate an issue without trying to smear my President that way? If they don't like his politics, fine. No problem. But there is a line that one should not cross. I've never suggested that Bill Clinton personally killed our sailors in the USS Cole attack. I've never said that Clinton was behind the first WTC attack. I've never heard of any conservative claim that Clinton knew ahead of time or caused any of the dozen terrorist attacks against Americans under his watch. Yet, liberals do that to Bush. Do they really think that if they blame Bush enough and call him a murderer often enough I will eventually believe it?

Answer 1

So much damage has already been done to the history of this nation they just figure why not keep changing it.

Answer 2

Well, let's have a real investigation into the 9/11 attacks. A real investigation would put to rest the conspiracy theories. If YOUR president has nothing to hide, then what's the problem? did the administration actually think by blocking any kind of investigation into the attacks would help us to "heal from the trauma" faster? Help us to move beyond it? I find it hard to believe that this administration has acted in any way that would benefit the American people.

I don't happen to think that YOUR president is smart enough to have pulled any of this stuff off. Karl Rove, however, is a different story.

As far as rewriting history, when hasn't it been? It would be so nice to hear the truth for a change.

Answer 3

I like your Clinton analogy because it shows the problem with our public debate. Stated as you put it, the claims against Bush and Clinton would be equally unlikely. What's missing is your presentation and critique of any specific evidence.

One gigantic difference is how Clinton approached the terrorism issue. He did not make a lot of noise about it or try to take away our civil rights. He worked on it behind the scenes, methodically tracking people down and stopping plots like Bojinka and the Millennium bomber. The sad thing is, Bush has lied and exaggerated so many terror alerts and threats that if he did prevent any terrorists acts, a lot of us might not believe him, and we will probably be suspicious of anything the next president says about terrorism whether he is a democrat or republican.

The other thing is republicans seemed far more interested in Clinton's sex life than his job performance, so they may not have felt a need to critique his OKC or first WTC attack.

Bush did have warnings from our law enforcement, our intelligence, and foreign intelligence. An FBI informant was living with one of the hijackers.

The joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 found that one country's intelligence agency was involved with the hijackers and gave them money--Saudi Arabia. Did we punish them in any way or even re-examine our relationship?

Further, I grew up next to an air national guard base, and saw them scramble everyday. I was in the Civil Air Patrol cadet program and toured the interceptors control room and got to talk to the pilots. I have a rough idea how NORAD works. You can't fly a plane around the Eastern United States unmolested for nearly two hours. Even if the NORAD radar was turned off, every fighter has it's own radar. There was a fighter squadron stationed at the air base you can see from the Pentagon, yet none of them were patrolling after two planes hit the World Trade Center?

Bush's behavior also reinforces conspiracy theories.

With any crime, you have to ask who benefits. The most Islamic fundamentalist would get out of the attack is exactly what we did: kill a lot of Muslims to make them madder.

By contrast, Bush has gained quite a bit from 9/11. He has used it to declare an unending war, and attempted to dismantle our system of checks and balances and take unquestioned power for himself, and even appointed a justice to the Supreme Court who refused to support the concept of checks and balances in his confirmation hearing.

And Bush used 9/11 to whip up fear of a country that had not attacked us and invade them. Without 9/11, people would have worried about Saddam having WMDs about as much as we worry about North Korea getting nukes. They fired a missile over Japan and we barely protested.

Bush's friends have made a tidy profit from no bid contracts in Iraq, and the oil companies dictated the hydrocarbon law Bush is forcing on the Iraqis. The oil contracts alone will be worth tens of TRILLIONS of dollars.

Money is usually a pretty powerful motive for businessmen.

Bush's behavior about the 9/11 investigations increased suspicion as well. Bush refused to let Congress publish the part of their report on Saudi involvement with the 9/11 hijackers and withheld key documents even from committee members with the highest security clearances.

When the public clamored for an independent 9/11 Commission, he dragged his feet as long as he could and gave them far less time and money than was spent investigating Clinton's sex life. When he was asked to testify, he demanded that it be at the White House with no transcripts, not even pen and paper in the hands of the committee members, and that Dick Cheney be there with him rather than each of them being questioned separately. That does not by itself mean that either is guilty, but it creates the impression they are trying to hide something .

If you read history, and look at what other world leaders have done, the suspicion that Bush was involved in 9/11 doesn't look as far-fetched. But here in America, we have a dangerous habit of believing the normal laws of human behavior don't apply to us, and that our leaders are never selfish, greedy, or would do anything to betray the best interests of the American people. Other presidents have had those faults and done those things, just not as blatantly as Bush, and not to the point that they would be suspected of killing Americans so their friends could profit.

Answer 4

Actually if you look at at 911 conspiracy theory conference up close without preconceived notions like Skeptic Magazine did, you'd find that the people who are attached to those theories even when presented with a lot of evidence to the contrary came from all sides of the political spectrum. The conspiracy theories come from Conservatives and Centrists as well as Liberals.

As to why people are going after Bush, some of what you say is likely true, but certainly no more so than the other way round. The conservatives tried to shred Clinton, and when they couldn't for legitimate reasons that have to do with things that affect Americans daily lives, they had to go after bedroom issues. Also Bush is legitimately one of the worst presidents in history without question. Talk to some actual history professors.

Its not hard to guess where you get your news from. Would it be FOX and talk radio? Big surprise. Try actually researching the issues and thinking for yourself instead of swallowing the spoon fed propaganda. BTW, I think there are lots of people on the left guilty of the same blinkered thinking, so it will be tough to paint me as biased.

Now be a good boy and run along to see what O'Reilly is telling you to believe today based on talking points passed down to him.

Answer 5

You persist in spouting the lie that liberals think Bush had something to do with 9/11. Get this:

NO ONE EXCEPT WACKOS BELIEVE THAT

Liberals and conservatives both believe it was 19 evil Islamic nuts and organized by OBL.

It is a typical ploy to keep repeating a lie and if you repeat it enough times, people will start believing it. You guys are highly skilled at this. You have been Swift Boating the nation for 6 years now.

Answer 6

Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not the liberals in general who subscribe to such nonsense. You're looking at fringe believers who have little to do with any political reality you would be able to attach a handle on.

So do everyone a favor and don't ask questions that we already know the answer to. You'll never hear the end of it.

Answer 7

Liberal Democrats have put themselves between a rock and a hard place.If America wins the war in Iraq the Liberal Dems. will be shunned as a party and as Traitors of their Country.So in short a win for the enemies of the U.S.A. is in effect a win for the Democrat party.Look at Murth,Polosi,Reid,Kerry,Kennedy and most other Democrat leaders they use themselves as mouth peices for the terrorist,Who is shouting from the top of the mountains that the U.S. is in fact the real terrorist.Even though the dems. fight America harder than Bin-Laddans group we will prevail because half of America can bring victory it just takes a little longer.

Answer 8

the actual question is why are conservatives changing years of background now, whilst it develop into stable for thus long. you're refering to the present hooplah relating to the Texas college board and the hearings on adjustments to its social study curriculum. this is extra political than religious. they choose their books to portray conservatives in a extra effective gentle. additionally they decide to rigidity the region of Christianity in American background and comprise Republican political philosophies in textbooks. they choose extra credit given to the conservative resurgence of the Eighteen Eighties and Nineties, like the settlement with u.s., the background commencing place, the moral Majority and the national Rifle association. Does that sound like liberals decide to get rid of faith from background? somebody is featuring you with a line of sh*t.

Answer 9

I'm with volley. It's pretty lame to lump all libs together on the conspiracy issue. I think its whacky and I'm a devout lib

Try to transcend generalizations :)

Answer 10

Alright -

Why do conservatives lump ALL LIBERALS into that conspiracy basket?

I vote liberal. My views are typically liberal, and I identify with them more than conservatives. But I DON'T believe that the government had anything to do with 9/11 other than ignoring some major signs of it happening.

Now, please correct your statement to say "some liberals". I think that is much more fitting.

Answer 11

Because conservatives overlooked anyone who wasn't a white male when they wrote it.
Just as many conservative NWO nutjobs believe that WTC was an "inside job" as liberals, you know. No way you guys are getting off the hook on that one.