If one was to have the conscientious humility and/or the anger and pain thresholds and clearheadedness to ponder what entities might have benefited from the 911 attacks and the ensuing "war on terror," then who or what would come to mind?
"Al-Qaeda"? Osama Bin Laden? "Islamic extremists"?
Okay. If we go by the "official" version of events, sure. "They" probably benefit in a cynical way. When "we" invade and pillage "their" lands, "they" can slowly bleed "us" through a drawn-out warfare replete with guerrilla-style, improvisational weaponry and tactics. "They" get to teach "us" a lesson not to drag "our," ahem, jewels across "their" turf and snatch "their" lives and "their" natural resources. Most importantly and convincingly, the CIA, Osama Bin Laden and "Al-Qaeda" are on the record as confirming that the motives for Osama's war declaration and such attacks were political. "They" are infuriated by "our" foreign policies which have called for unlawful occupation of "their" lands and bombing of "their" people. "They" want it to cease, and/or to make "us," the pillagers, pay the price. Either way, "they" have "our" bank-account-and-resource-draining and war-profiteering attention, and that benefits "them".
PNAC? AIPAC? US-Israeli war hawks?
No brainer. Their plans call for, amongst other schemes and dreams, a Pearl Harbor-like event, which would constitute an unprecedented and otherwise uncalled for bulking up of the U.S. military.  Well, they got their event, and they're getting their war, conquest, and — oh yeah — vast resources, thereby effectively putting the U.S. in the position of fighting the US-Israeli war hawks' chosen enemies for years to come and making butt loads of profit for the corporations, political opportunists and other finks who are entangled in such alliances. Their plans even call for regime-change in Iran. Unfortunately, it looks like everything, so far, has gone as "prepared for".
What about Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed-Martin, and others?
They make the equipment and provide the "extramilitary" personnel (thugs) to keep the war effort going. More war = more job security = progressively more money coming in = steadily high stock prices = happy corporate fatties back home = one cynically happy and endless cycle of mayhem, mass murder, and mega-money. (Pardon the visuals and the piss-poor economic math.)
And Rudy Giuiliani?
Before 911, he simply wasn't popular, and was especially loathed by the working class. He doesn't seem to do so well with grunts like me and statesmen like Ron Paul, who favor the Law of the Land above the over-reaching, fat hand. The man is a megalomaniac and a walking, talking, Fascist fiend for the Executive role (especially the "executing" part) and the power it allows him to abuse, much in the same way he abuses ". . . September the 11th . . ." If he was to further his career, or at least sustain a prominent public life, then he, like the PNACers, had to have nothing short of a cataclysmic event which would vault him into a measurable level of public favor. When the planes struck the towers, he got just that. Giuliani's career — or at least his image in the public eye — was revived in a flash. The cameras were all around; so all he had to do was look like someone who was in charge: a leader. I'm not saying he didn't lift a finger or give a damn — just pointing out the serendipity. He caught a break. His career was revived, if only in the eyes of mainstream Republicans and easily-duped common folk. Look at the Republican Party poll numbers (registered Republicans). Not bad, for a RINO and an erstwhile enemy of the common man. If any doubt exists that Rudy Giuliani benefited, financially, from the 911 attacks, just look at his "holdings". His corporate partners have done quite well over the last few years. In Rudy World, conflict of national and professional interest runs rampantly throughout. 
Okay, but who else, other than Rudy, profits or "benefits" from 911 and the "war on terror" by way of career resuscitation and/or financial gain?
Dennis' Dirty Not-So-Secret
At about the same time that the invasion of Iraq began in 2003, Ross Vachon wrote an article on Dennis Miller, providing a character analysis with which I concur:
[After the MNF gig] Students no longer thought Dennis Miller was cool, they thought he was what he was: a 50-something cynic who had nothing funny to say. Miller didn't just just need a break. He needed to break in a entire new act. 9/11 and Intifada II supplied it." "Dennis Miller would re-invent himself as a root-toot-a-tootin' Zionist crazyman. Use that rancid, smarmy whine on the Palestinians, the good-for nothing darkies.
Wait a minute, you're asking- what 's this zionist angle? Isn't Miller playing a yankee-doodle-candyass for the Red, White, & Blue? Huh?
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. No one's ever proved it any better than Dennis Miller. His phony, hellzapoppin' Uncle Sammy act is his last refuge to revive a half-dead career. Dennis Miller cares about America the way he cares about Finland, or Uzbekhistan, only if it's good for a laugh. Americans are desperate for good news, anxious to laugh, anything to help. They go see a comedian who's waving the flag, and yelling hip-hip-hooray. And, maybe that eases the tension for a minute and-a half. "Behind the curtain though- Dennis Miller is kissing a whole lotta ass. . . ."He's reduced himself to the level of a comic stand-in for meshuganah yahoos too circumspect to wave the Star of David onstage." 
I agree. Dennis Miller is a neocon-hasbaranik out of necessity, and a shameless, cheer-leading sycophant, clinging to the underbelly of a war machine which is profiting off the death of fellow countrymen and innocent Iraqis. He feigns concern for innocent people potentially dying, but doesn't care to account for, or give credence to the U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqis who have already been killed. He promotes a perpetual bloodbath lest another could arise — all hinging upon the decision of either doing the constitutional, pragmatic, and peaceful thing, or doing the unlawful, ideological, and violent thing (Miller, of course, choosing the latter). Nowhere is that self-destructive dubiousness more evident than in his May 30 telephone interview of Congressman Ron Paul. [6
Before the Q&A, Miller claimed that he agrees with Ron Paul on most issues, with the war being the area where he has sharp disagreements. Dennis then showed that at least that much was true. About three-quarters of the way through the interview, he had registered no disagreement with anything Ron Paul had to say. From eminent domain/property rights, to environmental/EPA issues, to his pro-life philosophy (Miller even extolled Paul on the integrity of his principled stand in that area.), to preserving and defending the Constitution, to taxation, to wealth-redistribution, Miller had no bones to pick. Before moving on to the subject of Iraq and the "war on terror," Miller reminded Dr. Paul that the subject of war was "where you and I go down to the same fork in the road and take the verge and pass." (In so saying, Miller had effectively conceded all points thus far to Paul, or at least confirmed that he had no argument against them.)
Finally, arose the questions of why we should leave Iraq, and why we shouldn't be there in the first place. As usual, Dr. Paul laid out airtight case, including but not limited to: the unconstitutionality of Congress not declaring war; the non-existence of a Saddam threat and WMDs; the wrong-wrongheadedness of enforcing UN Resolutions, especially with an aggressive war; the fact that Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for "Al-Qaeda" and "radical Islam" before we took Saddam out, carpet bombed them, and occupied them; our backward policy of coddling the most dangerous and rogue regimes in the Middle East while fear mongering over and attacking weaker and less-threatening ones; the positives that could come from withdrawal, like the peace gestures to, and the recognition of, Israel, by the Arab League, and its willingness and ability to help stabilize the region after the withdrawal; the inevitability of the U.S. going bankrupt due to war spending and borrowing; large numbers of Sunni and Sh'ia getting along in Parliament, and that they're getting ready to cast [another] vote which will likely ask us to leave; etc.
Through it all, Miller had no rebuttal to offer, and no argument to counter those from Dr. Paul; so naturally, playing the role of antagonist to reason and common sense, he had to come up with something — anything — to salvage his assumed position. His case, though, was so obviously lacking in authoritative, credible arguments to throw at Paul — so without a leg to stand on — that in order to have even an imagined ounce of viable resistance to the virtually indomitable, practical logic and irrefutable historic and contemporary evidence put forward by the statesman, he conveniently morph into a xenophobic, sensationalistic fear factory of madman apologetics. (Gee. Where have we seen that before?)
The Empire Hack Strikes Back
When it was clear that Miller had nothing to say on any legitimate grounds of rationale in the area of war and foreign policy, he shot out a sick, sadistic hypothetical of death on a mass scale that made Quentin Tarantino look like Ron Howard — expanding graphically on the same old, fallacious, Zioneocon stand-by: "It'll be a slaughterhouse when we leave." In typically crafty, cold, and gaudy Dennis Miller fashion, the horrific visual was delivered with the indifference of a mailman delivering a postcard when nobody is home, the drooling anticipation of a child ordering an ice cream cone, and the explicit detail of a Carl Sagan lecture on the cosmos.
That last-ditch attempt at facial salvation, however, was to no avail, as Dr. Paul responded by reminding Miller and his audience that the same people who were fraudulently sowing unfounded fear of a threat from Saddam before the Iraq invasion are the same ones who are conjuring up a fraudulent case for perpetual occupation and expansion on account of unsubstantiated claims of Iranian supply of weapons and training to insurgents in Iraq. And lo, that's when things got really interesting; that's when hatchet man Dennis flipped the neocon shill switch. No sooner than the final, indomitable refutation of Miller's neocon propaganda left Dr. Paul's lips, did Miller pull a cheap, cowardly, power trip move out of sheer, morbid desperation:
"Sorry, I got five seconds left... good luck [chuckle]... can't vote for ya [chuckle chuckle chuckle]... click!"
Five seconds. Huh. After killing the interview, he magically had 16 more minutes to kill the messenger, ragging on Dr. Paul and taking listener phone calls — most of which were ridden with misrepresentations of his statements and positions. Miller, of course, was all too happy to reinforce and further twist the falsehoods, and add his own demonizing cheap shots in true hasbara half-wit fashion. You couldn't have scripted a cheaper, more cowardly, or more self-defeating hatchet job — save, perhaps, for the Fox Noise Channel "debate".
The final sign that Miller was totally defeated and devoid of all potent argumentation was when — with Paul several minutes removed from the interview — he tried to paint Paul as being contradictory on his pro-life stance, implying that Paul didn't care that it could be a "slaughterhouse" after we leave. Ron Paul neither said nor implied any such thing. This was one of several ways in which Dennis Miller used mischaracterization, semantics, and flat-out lies to play the propagandistic shape-shifter. His desperate attempt to pigeon-hole and castigate Dr. Paul was cowardly, unbelievably shameless and indifferently grotesque. Throwing guilt of a hypothetical loss of lives at a man for taking the lawful and peaceful side is a horrible shame, in the most nefariously conniving and cynical of ways. It was so low and disgusting that I no longer see a line in Dennis Miller's "act" between knee-jerking and wishful thinking. The more I thought about his flaming rant (a torturous experience in and of itself), the more it began to dawn on me that Dennis Miller does want it to be a "slaughterhouse". He does not want the war to end, and apparently, for good — or at least personal — reasons.
Sure, Dennis had to have the "upper hand," so to speak, because it was his show; but why would he stoop to such a level as to totally disrespect the most widely-respected statesman in Congress?
What would make Dennis so inclined to put the final nail in his own camel's back by being such a totally sore loser, therefore confirming what most of us already knew: that he's completely impotent in such a debate?
What made Dennis Miller be such a condescending asshole to Ron Paul, who was being very cordial and frank (not to mention, educational) to Dennis?
I have a hunch. Let's look at that Ross Vachon excerpt once more. What was that Ross was saying four years ago?
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.
Yep. Now, who said almost the exact thing on the floor of the House of Representatives, back on May 22?
Madam Speaker, for some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government's abuse of the people's rights.
Ah yes. Congressman Ron Paul.
Wait a minute. You don't think...? Nah. Dennis isn't overcome by flashbacks of getting thoroughly, publicly exposed as the lapdog sucker he is. Is he?
Not at all! Dennis Miller is duck feathers. He, like his favorite candidate, Rudy Giuliani, and all the other Democrat and Republican neocons, is a political chameleon (windsock, actually). Just look at how he's been able to survive in "the business". He's flexible politically, ideologically, and ethically. Dennis Miller is a wordsmith, not a free-speaker: a provocateur, not an honest broker. He's gifted oratorically, but is also — of his own accord and partially via ignorance — restricted in what he can openly believe in, or own up to. Even though he knows that he and his fellow war profiteer, Giuliani are in the wrong on 911 and the "war on terrror," he can't concede even one point in that regard, because that would amount to an exposure of a "conflict of interest" or three. Consequently, it would make it nearly impossible for him to "land a gig" in the mainstream.
Friends in the Fraud
Miller and Giuliani have plenty in common: the fervor for perpetual and expanded war in the Middle East and wherever in the world we can find "terrorists," and the "profits" therefrom; the same nefariously cynical and serendipitous 911 "benefits"; and a gig with News Corp. (Imagaine that.) Is it any wonder, therefore, that even when he and his partner in slime, Giuliani, are so easily and so completely undressed with authoritative, empirical evidence, testimonials, and facts on U.S. foreign policy and the war, they still choose to claim that the U.S. must stay in Iraq and the greater Middle East for decades in order to fight the ill-conceived and mostly contrived and self-conflagrated "war on terror" against "Islamic extremists," "homicide bombers," and "jihadis"?
Is it any wonder that no sooner than they'll say, "They hate us because of our freedoms and Democracy," they'll spout, "We're spreading Democracy and freedom"?
Not at all. After six years of the same campaign of foreign conquest and central corruption, we know how it works. We know the routine. Hypocrisy distracts the farmer while hubris milks the cow.
 John Pilger: "A New Pearl Harbor" ifamericansknew.org
 Cliff Kincaid: "Fox News' Pro-Giuliani Conflict of Interest" aim.org
 Ney York Daily News Wire: "Giuliani firm on payroll of Prez Chavez oil company" nydailynews.com
 Jerome R. Corsi: "Rudy Giuliani tied to 'superhighways'" wnd.com
 Ross Vachon: "The Last Refuge of Goofy" counterpunch.org
 Dennis Miller: "The Dennis Miller Show, May 30, 2007" dennismillerradio.com
 Congressman Ron Paul: "Patriotism" lewrockwell.com