Like it or not—and I most certainly do NOT like it—the various 9/11 conspiracies theories are associated with people who lean left politically. Why? Because these Deniers share one thing in common with lefties: they deeply dislike and distrust the Bush Administration.

Over the years, many lefties including me have been critical of the moderate members of the Republican Party for kissing the asses of the kooky Christian Right and caving in to their demands for creationism in school, prayer everywhere, etc. Well, unfortunately we have our nutcases too. Do we want them to define us?

That’s why we need to address this nonsense head-on.

Some of the same folks who will readily decry the teaching of Creationism/ID in public schools as kooky, unsubstantiated nonsense (which, it is) are quick to embrace this elaborate conspiracy theory as gospel, so long as the perpetrator is Bush. Yes, Bush and company are bad people, but they are also grossly incompetent. Yet many of the same folks who believe this gobbledygook are among the Bush Administration’s greatest critics, often citing its incompetence on so many matters as one of its great failings. So, I think the lesson from the deniers is this: the Bush Administration is actually pretty incompetent, except when it concerns pulling off some very elaborate conspiracy involving hundreds of perpetrators, most of whom took an oath to defend the Constitution and its citizens, and then subsequently covering up the conspiracy. When it does this, the Bush Administration is actually a well-oiled, highly capable, conspiracy-generating machine.

Really, these people should’ve been writers for “The X-Files”.

Ponder this: suppose there was a government conspiracy behind 9/11. Why hasn't any major news organizations revealed it? It's been five years since it happened--surely some guilt-ridden or revenge seeking conspirator would feel like fessing up, and some reporter and newspaper would be bold enough to tell her story. That story would certainly be the scoop of the century, leaving Woodward’s and Bernstein’s Watergate investigation in the dust. A Pulitzer Prize would be right there for the taking.

It seems that Kerry may be learning a lesson from his former running mate, John Edwards. Edwards was one of the first--if not, the first--Senators to publicly express his regret for his earlier vote on the use of force in Iraq. On June 11, a Des Moines Register poll was released, in which Iowans were asked to state the Democratic presidential candidate that they preferred. Edwards led his potential rivals with 30% of the respondents choosing him, followed by Clinton with 26% and Kerry with 30%.

Coincidentally, a few days after that poll was released, Kerry changed his position on his vote.

It seems that Kerry may be learning a lesson from his former running mate, John Edwards. Edwards was one of the first--if not, the first--Senators to publicly express his regret for his earlier vote on the use of force in Iraq. On June 11, a Des Moines Register poll was released, in which Iowans were asked to state the Democratic presidential candidate that they preferred. Edwards led his potential rivals with 30% of the respondents choosing him, followed by Clinton with 26% and Kerry with 30%.

Coincidentally, a few days after that poll was released, Kerry changed his position on his vote.

it still only got 1%. Whoopee.

I'm not sure it's a rock song, though.

these things always seem to come in threes.

Because he opposes abortion and allowing equal rights for homosexuals. Some are still delusional enough to believe that Iraq is going well and is making us safer, but the bottom line is that he is the religious right's President and they still support him for that.

I might have been less skeptical about Iranian nuke claims a few years ago had there actually been WMDs found in Iraq and the subsequent occupation there had been better thought out, but skepticism is what you face after telling a fibber and handling things incompetently. I've heard some analysts say Iran is 5-10 years away from possession of nukes: what’s the hurry to start dropping bombs? The sad thing is, the Iranian population is generally young and has Western leanings that could be nurtured with time and diplomacy instead of warfare. But nope, might as well screw up that too.

I have no faith in Bush’s ability to either understand what is going on, tell us the truth about the situation, or successfully deal with the aftermath of any sort of bombing campaign. The Iranians are not going to sit, quietly pacified, afterwards. Expect much more trouble to be stirred up in Iraq (or elsewhere) if this happens with more dead U.S. troops as a result.

Regional war, anyone?

While this document does raise some interesting questions and provides some support to our gut feelings that Bush and Cheney had to have played a role in the intelligence leaking, it does not actually prove much of anything. I believe your War Room header is a bit misleading.

Punching an officer IS a big deal!!! Instead of explaining who she is, providing identification, etc., she instead allegedly chose to punch the officer.

Is this a good leadership quality? Is violence an acceptable way to solve miscommunication problems?

For Chrissake, take of your partisan blinders and admit when a Dem does something wrong.

Most of the items he requests are quite ordinary and can be found in many $60/night motels. If anything, it is refreshing to see that he reads 3 newspapers with different viewpoints. Bush's reading list, on the other hand, would include "Highlights for Children."

Now, if Cheney's list included a pedicure, a Turkish bath, and the services of 3 hot local escorts...then we might have something worth discussing.

It looks like I am the first person to comment. Some blogs that I enjoy have similar comment features and it really makes the columns much more interesting.