I was having a discussion today with a friend who was going on and on about how Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, along with their PNAC buddies, planned 9/11. My friend then went on to describe how they used the CIA and/or FBI to pull off 9/11 and cover-up the investigation.

I pointed out that the CIA director at the time, George Tenet, was a Clinton appointee, and the the FBI Director on 9/11, Robert Mueller, had only taken the job a week before the attacks. Up until June 25, 2001, the FBI director was another Clinton appointee, Louis Freeh.

I also pointed out that former Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, pled guilty to stealing and destroying documents from the National Archives relating to terrorism prior to his testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission, and that Berger recently hired fellow Democrat and former Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, to work as a consultant at Berger's multi-million dollar lobbying firm.

It then dawned on me how the 9/11 "Truth Movement" has almost entirely ignored the Democrats' possible connections to 9/11 when theorizing about possible conspiracies in order to focus almost 100% on bashing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the "neo-cons" for orchestrating 9/11.

So the question that comes to mind is whether or not the 9/11 "Truth Movement" is so zealous in it's attempts to demonize Bush for political reasons that it's giving a free pass to possible Clinton connections to the 9/11 attacks? Isn't it disingenuous for CTers to almost totally ignore Freeh, and especially Berger and Tenet? Berger stole and destroyed documents and Tenet is the one who advised Bush that the WMD's in Iraq were a "slam dunk." How could they NOT be part of the conspiracy?

For anybody who thinks putting Clinton back in the White House is the answer, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Thinking about this subject in more detail, it seems obvious that if there was a government conspiracy to create 9/11, it would almost certainly require well more than 9 months of planning. It would also require some sort of help from the CIA and FBI to both pull off the crime and cover-up the investigation.

So how does ANY CT theory propose to explain carrying out the logistics and planning of 9/11 by Bush and friends while leaving out the Clinton appointees that were in control pre-2001?

For a 9/11 conspiracy theory to have any possible credibility, wouldn't it have to include a link to the previous Clinton administration? How could Bush et al. manage to arrange an operation as complex as 9/11 immediately upon taking office? And if the Bush administration even proposed an operation as complex and treasonous as 9/11, how would they have been sure that the left-overs from the Clinton administration wouldn't have blown the whistle?

And why would a new administration that just took office take the incredible risk of plotting an attack against their own country? If caught, they would have blown 4 solid years where they could have milked the system for billions risk-free?

And the $2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld announced was not accounted for on 9/10/01? Wouldn't that money have gone missing during the Clinton administration? Wouldn't the left-overs from the Clinton administration have more motive to pull off 9/11 than the new Bush administration?

I think if the "Truth Seekers" would stop for a minute and take off their partisan blinders, it would become very obvious that the Bush administration could never have been alone in any government complicity relating to 9/11. Of cousre maybe the ruling elite count on the polarization of the country to make sure they can continue to get away with schemes like 9/11.