(2 of 4)
Calling Max Boot's "second opinion" rebuttal of Ferguson's story an example of straw-man argumentation would be an insult to straw men everywhere [Sept. 11]. No credible analyst of the Middle East believes that democracy is not preferable to the tyranny of Islamic fundamentalism. The debate is over tactics. Perhaps the only human attribute more powerful than the yearning for democracy is the loathing of political change wrought at gunpoint. Boot's signal example of democracy's triumph over tyranny is the collapse of the Soviet Empire. But that victory was not achieved by U.S. forces unilaterally storming the gates of the Kremlin and tearing down the statue of Lenin. Rather, the Soviet Union rotted from within, abetted by a sensible and hard-nosed policy of political, economic and military containment by a true multinational coalition. If democracy flourishes in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East, it will be in spite of the Bush doctrine, not because of it.
Jeff Timberlake.
Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.
Boot's article was just another example of neoconservative naiveté. According to Boot, all the U.S. has to do to rid itself of terrorists is find a list of nondemocratic countries that support jihadists and set the people of those countries free with democracy. In fact, Iraqis may not vote themselves free from sectarian violence, and Iranian people, if liberated, may not want to give up access to nuclear resources. The U.S., after several years of failure, should have learned that those issues have to be dealt with in a pragmatic, case-by-case manner.
Hanting Teng
Taipei
It is a leap of faith to assume that democracy in the Middle East will take root. Islamic culture is based on authoritarian tribal values and traditions. By what presumption does Boot think that this grand experiment by Bush will succeed?
Rajesh Singh
Watchung, New Jersey, U.S.
The 9/11 Skeptics
Re "Why the 9/11 conspiracies won't go away" [Sept. 11]: Your story's idea — that millions of Americans (36%, according to the poll cited) who question the official explanation of what happened on 9/11 are simply unable to deal with the magnitude of the atrocity and the randomness of life — was dismissive and shallow. What about those of us who simply approach life with a healthy dose of skepticism? I would feel much more optimistic about our nation if more people questioned what happened on 9/11. If people had been a little more skeptical, maybe we would have questioned whether Iraq really had wmd, whether the war and reconstruction would pay for themselves and whether 130,000 troops were enough. Maybe we would have questioned the need to elect George W. Bush to a second term.
Ryan Gielen
New York City
Is it one-third of Americans who are delusional, as your story suggested, or is it actually two-thirds? You admitted that there was "a lack of identifiable plane wreckage" at the Pentagon crash site yet asserted that "the remains of all but one [of the passengers] have been identified." Does Time have a theory that explains why two-thirds of Americans are untroubled by such an outrageous contradiction?
Paul Holme
Paranaque, the Philippines
Conspiracy theorists know they have nothing. Press them for solid proof, and they claim they are just asking questions. Most conspiracies follow the same pattern. All evidence and expert testimony backing up the official story is "fake" or "planted," while the lack of evidence backing up the conspiracy theory is merely "proof" that the evidence is being covered up. With no structural engineers or demolition experts backing up the conspiracy nonsense, the theorizers rely instead on a cast of characters who are nuttier than squirrel dung. They make for good comedy, if nothing else.
Jan Burton
Toronto
I was disappointed by the reporting on the conspiracy theories. Too many pieces of evidence about 9/11 cannot be explained within the framework of the official version. Where are the Watergate sleuths Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein when we really need them?
Inge Drucks
Breckerfeld, Germany