A very good read.

[kandrathe]

That's also why (like I stated before) don't believe in these theories. I do believe the attacks were very, very convenient for the neocons and they are doing everything to profit as much as possible from it...

And, that is why I accused you of being myopic. If your bus is late or your milk is sour, it must be Bush's fault. I feel you and many other liberals wave that Bush bashing cloth as way to recognize each other. It's like part of the secret handshake, "... eat granola, save the planet, Bush sucks, and bike to work."

If you recall, the economy tanked after 9/11 and many people became unemployed, growth was sluggish. You are wrong if you are thinking chaotic messes are good for corporations in general, and I recall it moved the stock market from being bullish to being bearish. So no, neo-cons focused on the economy would want non-stop double digit growth which for other than the military suppliers requires peace and stability.

This is why the Neocons were myopic in focusing on Saddam Hussien as he was the most vulnerable bully in the neighborhood. It is not easy to declare war on "all the bad people who want to hurt us", but it is easier to go after the one vulnerable nation state that was breaking all the rules. And, it helped that we already had alot of our equipment pre-positioned after GWI. I believe the Neo-cons would have profited more by preventing the WTC event and looking politically like defenders of America and by solving the Iraq problem without an invasion. But, that horse has left the barn.