My entry for 2003.
Dude this KICKS ASSSSSSSSS.
Not all that impressive.
According to these theories, Bush was briefed about the bin Laden threat in August and did nothing, therefore is complicit. But, because a Pakistani former official claims a strike was planned against Afghanistan for October, therefore Bush is complicit. You can't have it both ways!
If the highjacker evidence was planted, they did a really poor job. Why make them Saudis supported via Afghanistan, both of whom were allies? Surely Iraqis would be much better! Many in the administration were already spoiling for a fight with Saddam, and since then they have expended much energy trying to obscure the Saudi connections and trump up nonexistent Iraqi connections.
The purported benefits to Enron and so on are a bit silly. Nothing about these deals requires the destruction of the World Trade Center (and a predictable slowdown in an already limping economy). War in Afghanistan has only delayed the building of a pipeline. The economic carnage wreaked on the economy and even those particular firms far outweighs the benefits of one or two contracts, even billion-dollar size projects. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, whose offices were in the WTC, was one of the largest political contributors in the securities industry, most going to the Republicans.
Everything is true! Nothing is permitted!
Speaking of Herr Nietzsche, you should check out this philosophy quiz that's been making the rounds. A cut above the usual quiz meme.