The fundamentals of our economy are strong, right?

As you consume your processed turkey product and Charles Shaw Merlot this Christmas, while explaining to your kids why they've only got cheap Chinese plastic in their stocking, thank a Republican.

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

Why did al Qaeda commit the crimes of 9/11? Because they are "evil" is as far as the discussion usually gets. Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003? Because the administration are evil incompetent liars? People who hijack planes and fly them into buildings killings thousands are evil people. That the Bush administration lied us into unprovoked invasion of a soverign nation-- Iraq-- supports the conclusion that they are liars, corrupt, incompetent and evil. But neither simple conclusion answers the more strategic questions about the fundamental reasons why either act occurred.
Motivations are rarely mutually exclusive, so much of the discussion about the fundamental reasons can be true, yet still miss the greater reasons. For instance, al Qaeda attacked to create terror and to gain stature. Both are likely true, but to what end?
Bush invaded Iraq because of oil. We are undeniably so involved in the region because of its oil resources-- but Saddam Hussein was selling oil (although he had to be bribed) and the price of oil was at an all time low because he was flooding the market and the Saudis were running a national deficit before 9/11. Yes, we are involved in the reqion because of oil. But that obvious answer doesn't explain the rush to invade and botch the efforts in Afghanistan.
A discussion of both big questions may revolve around the fact that a little over the month after the invasion of Iraq, the second time, Rumsfeld announced the withdrawal of our military from Saudi Arabia. The withdrawal was a central demand of al Qaeda and because the US had 'no-fly' zones over Iraq, we had to invade Iraq to concede to the al Qaeda demand. It is interesting to note that a year earlier (Jan and Feb 2002), the Saudi royals had also asked the US to leave. Typical of the Bush administration pattern of action, they first denied this and then made piecemeal admissions.
So when George Bush is questioned about the accuracy of WMD intelligence as late as December 2008, it underscores the failings of the ability to engage all American minds in the discussion and analysis. The issue was never WMD, from day one in office, Bush knew we had to get rid of Saddam to eliminate the need to enforce the no fly zone, in order to get out of Saudi Arabia, to stop the escalating pattern of terrorism directed toward the US and its interests since the Khobar towers up to the attack on the Cole. Bush, the generals, the congress knew they couldn't stop al Qaeda, so they surrendered to its demands. It may be a major reason that there haven't been any subsequent attacks or attempts to attack on the US soil
Sadly, both sides may avoid this discussion because it is not neatly dualistic. Its easier to see Bush as evil, than sort out the messy details that there may have been other reasons the rush to invade Iraq.
Its worth a discussion, because we can't get this straight until we have a reasoned look at what happened.
Thank you.