Replying to Protecting U.S.

One thing that REALLY got to me about Fahrenheit 9/11 was this:

It seems that a really popular argument for voting for George W. Bush nowadays is 'He's protecting America', 'Kerry is weak', 'Bush is defending America against terrorists' etc. etc.

All you people who have posted sentences like that in arguments FOR Bush. What are your main views on this theory put up by Moore?:

That the Bush-administration willingly USED 9/11 attacks to start a scare about terrorism in the US. To make people afraid of the foreign threat. There were a MILLION terror-warnings after the 9/11 attacks. But how many attacks REALLY occurred? Was that REALLY because Bush was defending the country, or maybe there wasn't any threat at all? The government kept the 'Terror-meter' at a high level to keep people afraid and scared of the eastern world.

This was the means to keep people supporting the 'war-president'. Bush was the man who was going to protect America. And when he decided to attack Iraq, a huge part of the US 'blindly' chose to follow his lead and go to war. This was a plan that had been there from the beginning of the post 9/11 period. The 9/11 attacks were the PERFECT base for a later attack on Iraq.

If this is really the case (Im NOT saying that it REALLY is, nor saying it isn't), then every single person HOLDING on to this fear of terrorism, this inherrent feeling of fear of terrorrism (being conciously or unconsciously) is mostly a product of government propaganda.

Thus the argument og voting for the 'stronger' president is no longer valid. There is no NEED for the 'War-president'.

This is a question. Im not saying that the theory is the real thing. If it was. It would be.... well... terrible.

___________
My knee is like my skiing... Really bad.