I still say Bush commissioned the attacks
The amount of evidence in this case is overwhelming. Just following the links in these links will take you awhile.

Read "The Attack Has Been Spectacular" by Maureen Farrell. Bush lied about his intelligence failures. Bush lied about his justifications for going to war in Iraq. Bush lied about the investigation. Bush lied about his connections to bin Laden.

"But even if WMDs aren't found (or planted), the Inquirer's Dick Polman assures that "Americans might overlook Bush's claims because the war in Iraq was brief and had few U.S. casualties." As a matter of course, Polman also compares George Bush's lies to Bill Clinton's, as if saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" is somehow comparable to spilling both blood and treasure. Given that thousands of Iraqis and more than 200 Americans have already lost their lives (even as US soldiers are ambushed and murdered daily) and that the illegal occupation of Iraq is expected to last somewhere between 5 and 60 years, weighing the consequential trauma of Monica's soiled blue dress against the long-term consequences of Bush Doctrine-related fabrications is like wondering if Martha Stewart is as criminally diabolical as John Wayne Gacy."

But why would Bush lie? Why would he cover up? Why would he order the attacks in the first place? Why indeed.

Remember BEFORE the attacks when the Government Accounting Office sued the White House to see records of Cheney's Energy Task Force? Why was the White House so intent on stifling THIS investigation? Was it just because Enron and Ken Lay were in the middle of the largest corporate scandal in US history? Or might there be something else?

"The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection?" takes some careful reading, as well as fair knowledge of the geography of the region.

"It's clear the Cheney had his own conflicts of interest with Enron. A chief benefactor in the trans-Caspian pipeline deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm which was previously headed by Cheney. After Cheney's selection as Bush's Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also contributed a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers."

As you study this article, keep in mind the man who represented Bush in the case of "The People Vs. Bush and Co." in December 2000 - James Baker.

"Through his law firm, Baker & Botts, he is also working to assist American oil companies in the Caspian Region. This work right now involves a pipeline to be built through Afghanistan, a pipeline that Texas oil companies were negotiating with the Taliban to build before 9-11.

Another discomforting starting point chronicles Cheney's efforts to stifle the Enron investigation.

If you need a refresher on recent history this site gives you a timeline. Chronology - The Bush White House's Refusal to Cooperate with a Congressional Investigation of the Energy Task Force

So why isn't the media all over this?

What media? Remember the FCC "debates" last month? "Rove told him [Jack Welch] a Bush administration would initiate comprehensive deregulation of the broadcast industry. Rove guaranteed that deregulation would be implemented in a way that would create phenomenal profits for conglomerates with significant media holdings, like GE. Rove forcefully argued that General Electric and the other media giants had a compelling financial interest to see Bush become president."

Enron - Bush - Baker - Cheney - bin Laden - AFGHANISTAN! - IRAQ! - Halliburton

Can someone explain this to me? Like I'm a six year old?