The Age of Irrationality: 9/11 Conspiracists and the Decline of the American Left

[greyl]

counterpunch
November 28, 2006
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

<snip>
Five years after the attacks, 9/11 conspiracism has now penetrated deep into the American left. It is also widespread on the libertarian and populist right, but that is scarcely surprising, since the American populist right instinctively mistrusts government to a far greater degree than the left, and matches conspiracies to its demon of preference, whether the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Black Helicopters or the Jews.

These days a dwindling number of leftists learn their political economy from Marx via the small, mostly Trotskyist groupuscules. Into the theoretical and strategic void has crept a diffuse, peripatic conspiracist view of the world that tends to locate ruling class devilry not in the crises of capital accumulation, or the falling rate of profit, or inter-imperial competition, but in locale (the Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, Ditchley, Davos) or supposedly "rogue" agencies, with the CIA still at the head of the list. The 9/11 "conspiracy", or "inside job", is the Summa of all this foolishness.

<snip>

There are plenty of real conspiracies in America. Why make up fake ones? Every few years, property czars and city government in New York conspire to withhold fire company responses, so that enough of a neighborhood burns down for the poor to quit and for profitable gentrification to ensue. That's a conspiracy to commit ethnic cleansing, also murder.

It's happening today in Brooklyn, even as similar ethnic cleansing and gentrification is scheduled in San Francisco. Bayview Hunters Point is the last large black community in the Bay Area, sitting on beautiful bay front property. So now it's the time to move the black folks out. As Willie Ratcliff, publisher of the Bay View newspaper writes, "If the big developers and their puppets, the mayor and his minions win this war, they'll have made what may be the largest urban renewal land grab in the nation's history: some 2,200 acres of San Francisco, the city with the highest priced land on earth."

more

[Lithos]

1. The world wants to be deceived

n/t

[greyl]

8. That's a truthful statement.

I hope people don't misinterpret his use of "the decline of the American Left" as favoritism for the Right.
He isn't suggesting that people abandon the Left's ship, he's only pointing out a leak in our craft in hopes of repairing it.

[judaspriestess]

2. hmmm, FOUR planes flying in the opposite direction

for over an hour and TWO into the heart of Manhattan and no one knew this was happening? PNAC, the rush to war against Iraq. The "foolishness" is on his part not to question the government or be leary of this current admin.

[OneBlueSky]

3. um . . . could be because the "official" story is so full of holes . . . n/t

.

[aquart]

4. Oh. Cockburn.

[IWantAChange]

5. Steel structures collapsing at the speed of gravity

don't require much of a theory to question - seems more like common sense to me. Jet fuel doesn't burn that hot and steel girders don't fly blocks when a building collapses and TURNS TO DUST.

[Flarney]

6. Cockburn is soooo sophisticated...

Wow, A. Cockburn (sounds painful) is so sophisticated and smart for trusting the government's official story. I feel like such a rube now. I mean, how could he not believe it? They were such crack investigators that they had the whole crime solved that morning within hours of the attacks (when they produced the names and pictures of the alleged hijackers). Right. There are countless reasons to doubt the official story and it's imperative that we have a real investigation.

I'd like to see Cockburn put his money where your mouth is and actually publicly debate someone like David Ray Griffin (you know, the "high priest of 911" he quotes in his article). I bet he would never agree to do it because, well, that would be beneath him whouldn't it?

[KoKo]

7. Well....he makes a good point in a way. Except he fails to realize that

not all "9/11 Questioners" are not "pre-wired bomb theorists" but are folks who know that something went very wrong with US Systems put in place since the Cold War and that whatever caused "9/11" needs to be as fully discussed as the "Powers that Be" who neglect the Middle Class and Working Poor in America.

One doesn't have to be a student of Marx or Trotsky to be able to see that our system of Democracy in America has been badly corrupted and that Globalism feeding off runaway Capitalism is just about ready to ruin us.

If we can get some answers to why the Bushies allowed "9/11" to happen it might solve or point in the direction of correcting alot of other problems we are facing.

[greyl]

9. Where do you get the idea he fails to realize that?

30 minute infomercials make a ton of money(distressingly) by selling ideas to people who've had very little exposure to unbiased pro v con arguments. For many people, critical thinking isn't a part of their repertoire in approaching the world, and will "buy" arguments which are emotionally persuasive and/or constructed with fallacious logic, without withholding judgement long enough to consider that there are probably other sides to the story.
I think Cockburn realizes that frequently goes on in the realm of conspiracy theorizing, and is only trying to encourage people to take a step back in order to look closer.

[Flarney]

10. The problem with Cockburn is...

The problem with Cockburn is that he is WAY behind the curve on 911 research. I do not need "perspective" from him. Thank you all the same. (not really)

[greyl]

13. Evidence?

I could just as easily say that the CTist figureheads are way behind the curve on 911 research. The statement means extremely little without supporting evidence, though.

[Flarney]

14. Just the fact that...

he cannot acknowledge that there are legitimate questions that need to be answered means he is either an idiot, willfully ignorant or has an ulterior motive. Would you like me to list some of these blatantly legitimate questions? Even if the official conspiracy theory was true (which it is not), the investigation was such a whitewash (and made impossible, in fact, by the illegal removal and destruction of crime scene evidence) that we were not able to learn how we might thwart such an attack in the future.

[greyl]

15. That's not a fact.

Cockburn and you have a different opinion of what the "legitimate" questions are, is all.
The underlying difference is that Cockburn sees evidence of criminal negligence or incompetence where CTists shelve evidence which weakens their "evil genius" explanation.

Indeed it's very probable that the FBI or US military intelligence, even the CIA, had penetrated the Al Qaeda team planning the 9/11 attacks; that intelligence reports--some are already known--piled up in various Washington bureaucracies pointing to the impending onslaught and even the manner in which it might be carried out.

I hope you can agree that the 911 CT movement is full of illegitimate questions which only serve to distract from productive ones.

edit: to sharpen the point, here are some "questions" which I think are legitimate, but a large population of the 911 CTists don't even believe that terrorism exists, so are at once useless and damaging to the effort to shore up the Democratic position of strength regarding National Security and debunking the myth that bushco is competent at protecting our country.

[Flarney]

17. Agreed

I absolutely agree that there are lots of illegitimate questions (there are fringes to any group/movement)...but for Cockburn to dismiss the possibility of full complicity or complete foreknowledge by our government while admitting that (as the passage you quoted above admits) there is still investigation to be done, that is intellectually dishonest.

That was the problem with the Official 911 Commission...they started with a conclusion and gathered evidence to support it. A perfect example of this is the way the Commission explained the massive amounts of highly profitable put options that were purchased days before 911...they said that the trades were made by someone with no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda, and they left it at that. Do you see anything wrong with that kind of logic? That's just preposterous.

The only thing that serious 911 Truth supporters want is a serious investigation that follows the evidence wherever it leads.

[greyl]

18. Well, hot dog. :)

Still, I'm not convinced that Cockburn is "dismissing the possibility of full complicity or complet foreknowledge".
I think it's likely that he's only claiming that certainty of what only deserves to be considered speculation about possibility isn't justified by the evidence, nor by applying Occam's razor.

[Flarney]

21. Well...

...that's why his article is annoying. We all agree that there are claims that aren't justified (I don't think a space laser brought the towers down, for example). However, his article would be more relevant if he would emphasize that fact that a real investigation would put the "crazy" theories to rest (or, more likely IMHO, prove a few right). Instead, he attacks the parts he doesn't like and casts dispersions on the 911 Truth movement as a whole...as though as a liberal or whatever he feels the need to distance himself from alternate 911 theories...we're not talking about Area 51 aliens here, we're talking about very powerful people with powerful motives and powerful means that need to be vetted.

If Cockburn really is not "dismissing the possibility of full complicity or complete foreknowledge" and does agree that we need a new investigation, he needs to have the balls to come out and say it, because that's the most important point of all of this, not whether or not he thinks ALL claims are legit. I just don't see how his article is helpful to anyone...except for his own sense of sophistication for not believing "conspiracy theories."

[Parche]

11. FACTS

Facts are not conspiracies

Operation Northwoods, looks like he didnt read that document.


America has been duped by this administration

The towers falling the way they did???
Building 7 collapses without being hit by any planes
4 planes hijacked but where was the US Air Force??


This guy sounds ignorant of the facts

[BridgeTheGap]

12. I feel so bad for being one of them

I mean, it just has to be true that IslamoFascists pulled off 9/11,
And, no, there are NO rogue elements in the CIA,
never was any contra crack in L.A.
BCCI never laundered drug money
NO, it just couldn't be so.
There, I feel better now!

[applegrove]

16. Brought to you by the people who keep secrets and try and stop commissions,

transparency and clarity at every turn.

[Peace Patriot]

19. Ya know, Alexander Cockburn sometimes flies off the planet. This is one

of those times. Get this (his quoting of an "authority"):

"Michael Neumann, a philosopher, and CounterPunch contributor, at the University of Trent, in Ontario, remarked in a note to me:

"'I think the problem of conspiracy nuttery has got worse, and is part of a general trend. There really were serious questions about the Kennedy assassination, an unusual number of them, and it wasn't too crazy to come to the wrong conclusion. There wasn't a single serious question about 9-11. But this is the age of angels, creationism, corpses all over Kosovo, Arabs suspiciously speaking Arabic, Satanic child abuse, nucular Eyraquees, and channeling. The main engine of the 9-11 conspiracy cult is nothing political; it's the death of any conception of evidence.

"'This probably comes from the decline of Western power. Deep down, almost everyone, across the political spectrum, is locked in a bigotry which can only attribute that decline to some irrational or supernatural power. The result is the ascendency of magic over common sense, let alone reason.'"

-------------------------------

The howler is this: "There wasn't a single serious question about 9-11."

Yup, that's Cockburn's "authority" speaking. Not a single serious question.

This is what passes for thinking these days at the University of Toronto, I guess. ("The decline of Western power...")

But there is a subtler howler: "There really were serious questions about the Kennedy assassination, an unusual number of them..."

Does this asshole have any concept of the pain and suffering of the people who dared to raise questions about the Kennedy assassination? Yeah, it's hip now--forty years later. It wasn't hip then. In fact, it's quite possible that a number of people are dead because they raised those questions.

I really have no patience with this. Apparently, Cockburn got upstaged by 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" at some event in Eureka, California, and he's really steamed about it--and ends up quoting some completely uninformed "philosopher" that "there wasn't a single serious question about 9-11," and endorses that view.

Today's nuts are tomorrow's philosophers, you know. But then something happens to them. They get professorships and nice grants and book contracts, and cease being nuts--i.e., truthtellers.

-----------------------------

There are, indeed, grave questions about 9/11. And the obsessive secrecy and lack of accountability of the Bush Junta are quite obviously blocking the answers to them. Why? It is hauntingly similar to the Kennedy assassination--official government lying-ass commission and all. The official reasons for not answering a number of serious questions are absurd; the slapdash answers to a number of serious questions would be laughable, if the matter were not so serious--with dead bodies all over the world's landscape due to 9/11; and many very serious questions were not even asked. You don't have to be a nut to be very concerned about these questions. And the "nuts" who have asked them, and have tried to formulate theories about them, have a lot of respect from me. Sometimes it takes people with a little craziness in their souls to penetrate the fog around the powerful and greedy and their nefarious crimes--and to say unpopular things, things that don't fit our neat pictures of the world.

Of all the ignorance and venom in Cockburn's diatribe, this bit struck me in particular: His excuse for the NORAD standdown, of incompetence--a typical military "screw up," which he says happen with "monotonous regularity, by reason of stupidity, cowardice, venality and all the other failings, not excepting sudden changes in the weather." The NORAD standdown simply cannot be explained this way--and Cockburn doesn't mention any of the reasons why. He's on a rant--and he commits the same intellectual sin that he accuses the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" of--that is, cherry-picking your evidence. No one who is aware of the known facts about the NORAD standdown can say that these facts don't raise serious questions--including questions about possible insider involvement, and a range of serious questions about our national security.

I just dismissed him, at that point, as too emotional to be of any use to me on the subject of the article (what the left should be focused on). I'm always willing to entertain "counter" views, at the often brilliant and informative "CounterPunch" web site. But this effort to further marginalize the already-marginalized--the "9/11 conspiracy theorists"--is not useful, and it had the opposite effect on me. It gave them more credibility--for hanging in there, for enduring ridicule, and for addressing the serious questions about 9/11 that have been "black-holed" by all of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies and by much of the U.S. "establishment" left as well. (Yeah, Alex, YOU are now the "establishment"!).

[Flarney]

22. Right on. ****

n/t

[greyl]

25. You make some good points.

Eliminating the distracting, baseless questions from the arena of holding bushco accountable for 9/11 is a huge problem.
I think it's accurate to say that there are more ridiculous theories out there, than reasoned lines of inquiry. Hopefully, this article has at least some influence toward identifying the ridiculous ones.

I don't think I can cite one article debunking 911 myths which is also sufficiently blatant in its anti-bushco stance to persuade those who are already convinced of some degree of MIHOP.

[Flarney]

26. The solution...

to "eliminating the distracting, baseless questions from the arena of holding bushco accountable for 9/11" is to have a real, non-partisan, scientific and fully funded investigation. Cockburn wastes his time nitpicking theories when he should be screaming for a new investigation. Pushing for a new investigation doesn't mean you support all alternate theories.

Cockburn has the power and influence to help the situation (to some degree) but instead he chooses to be a part of the problem.

[greyl]

27. Since we're taking this seriously, let's write to him.

Your solution would also entail pleading with the nebulous group of people who identify with the particular group "911 Truth Movement" to do some justified evolving; marginilizing the disinfo, and taking specific valid arguments like those offered by Cockburn into their fold.

It should be noted again that there is plenty of infighting within the 911 Truth Movement about various theories, but next to zero concerted effort to have our valid questions implicating bush answered.

Again, the problem to solve becomes eliminating the bullshit from legitimate lines of inquiry.
We don't do that by discounting solid arguments against disinfo because they weren't included in a meta-argument formed with the idea that both bush and critical thinking are our enemy.

edit:gramm

[happydreams]

20. "To view the world as all conspiracy....

,or all drift (no Power Elite)is to relieve oneself of the responsibility of seeking out the truth about power and ways of the powerful."

--C. Wright Mills ("The Power Elite")

I can understand his concern about people jumping on the bandwagon without thinking for themselves. I know of a number of people like that who, like me believe in the "inside job". It is very disturbing when I realize so many seemingly informed people just mouth what they heard without questioning the sources and have very little understanding of the economic forces behind these events.

I'd like to hear Coburn's take on the Reichstag fire, or the sinking of the Maine.

[irislake]

23. I can't get my head around the fact that

some seemingly very intelligent people accept the official version of 9/11 when it is so illogical even absurd and when the Bush Administration tried to block investigation of it and those responsible for protecting your country were never asked tough questions. It REEKS of government complicity in 10001 ways. And for starters those high government officials just didn't act like innocent people. Can never get over how each and every one of them Bush, Rummy, and Meyers sat twiddling their thumbs while the terrorist attacks unfolded. (God only knows what Cheney was really doing. I have read several versions.) Surely any intelligent person would have questions. It bugs me that those who don't believe are called nuts. Well --- now the believers are in the minority according to polls. I wonder how many government officials in other countries are sure the U.S government was complicit. They would never say so. Unless they were reckless like Hugo Chavez. Several EX-politicians in Germany and England have said it was an inside job. One was an ex minister of defence. Putin among others gave specific warnings prior to 9/11 and afterwards said it could never have happened in Russia because fighter jets would have been up in the air within minutes. I wonder what he really thinks. We know NORAD lied to the commision and so did Condi.Hmmmmm.

[Flarney]

24. Seriously...

...and when Bush and Cheney did testify, they refused to do so separately or be put under oath. The private testimony could not be recorded and the commission members' notes had to be reviewed by the white house... not that that's suspicious or anything...

[irislake]

28. I definitely did not suspect a thing

It is absolutely preposterous and utterly outrageous to suspect Bush and Cheney of such a vile plot against America. Have they ever lied to you?

[Peace Patriot]

29. I want to go back to this "nut" thing. Why are leftists and others so afraid of

being associated with "nuts" and "nutty theories"? What's wrong with nuts and nutty theories? It takes all kinds, you know.

So here's my nutball theory about it.

The war profiteering corporate news monopolies have succeeded in gaining control of a certain portion our brains devoted to concepts of reality. For instance, for a long time, many of us believed that we rational, tolerant, progressive people, who want peace and justice in the world, were in the minority in this country. That was one of their few propaganda victories. Let me explain. In Feb. '03, before the invasion of Iraq, 56% of the American people opposed the Iraq war. Although the invasion got some of those people to shut up for a while, after the invasion, the opposition started going right back up, and has hit about 70% today. At the same time, about 50% of our American brethren and sistren believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and/or had something to do with 9/11. Think about these numbers. This means that a significant portion of the people who believe(d) these myths ALSO oppose(d) the war! People were struggling, trying to figure things out for themselves. Bottom line, most didn't trust George Bush. Saddam maybe had WMDs, but they weren't a big threat and it wasn't worth a war. Or, maybe Saddam had something to do with 9/11, but it was minor and, again, no justification for a war. The American people--even many of those with bits of disinformation rattling around in their heads--were trying very hard to make sense of it all, to decide for themselves what wise action should be, and were adhering to their rational, tolerant, progressive, peace-minded, justice-minded views. NOW: How did you perceive the American people during this period (circa 2003)? Stupid? Uninformed? Sheeple? Yahoo rednecks? Fatass consumers only interested in their own comfort? Callous? Oblivious? In truth, the MAJORITY of us, a big majority--a majority that would be a landslide in a presidential election (56%--opposed the war from the beginning! A MAJORITY! And it's been less than a majority only for a brief period (during the invasion, with US troops at max risk)!

Some portion of the part of our brains that is devoted to concepts of reality got taken over by the war profiteers' brainwashing propaganda that most Americans were gungho warmongers, ready to sieg heil the Dictator. It was never true. It was almost entirely a construction of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. And that same portion of our brain is also being invaded by notions of embarrassment and fear of association with nutballs and nutball theories. Why should we wish to distance ourselves from them? Why not enjoy them? Why not praise them for raising good questions? Why not embrace them as our Cassandras? Answer: Because those same war profiteering corporate news monopolies constantly piss on the left as crazies and extremists, and we have accepted their concept of ourselves, at least to the degree that we fear BEING CALLED crazies and extremists. We've accepted THEIR version of what the "mainstream" is (in effect, what reality is). Accepted opinion. Groupthink. We don't want to be considered nuts.

But the people who change things are almost always "nuts," at first. They HAVE to be a bit nuts to challenge the established order. Then, later, they are considered prophets. This happens all the time. It is the history of philosophy. It is the history of science. It is the history of art. It is the history of education. It is the history of history. The new is nuts; and later it becomes the accepted wisdom. Not everyone who is nuts is later considered a prophet. Some remain nuts. But you never quite know which is which, especially in the moment, when it's happening. That's what democracy is all about--at least in that nut, Thomas Jefferson's, mind. You hear everybody out, without prejudice. The best ideas rise to the top, naturally. But if you suppress some views, and scorn them, and try to shut them up, you will never know if they are the geniuses and prophets of the future, nor how much they might have contributed to human progress, or to your own knowledge and understanding. And. what. is. the. harm. in. letting. them. rant?

Cockburn's article is an act of suppression. His attempt to heap scorn on certain people, and their far-out views on 9/11, is a not very well disguised effort to shut them up, and to so color our view of them, that we dismiss them before we've even heard them. He wants us not to buy their books. He wants us not to go to their lectures. They are not the "pure" left--the serious people, like him. And his lack of attention to facts is the giveaway. It's just ridiculous to say that there are no serious questions about 9/11. The "philosopher" he consulted, who said this, doesn't know what he's talking about. And neither does Cockburn.

And I don't know if Cockburn did this consciously, or what. I really don't know. But I think his brain might have been infected--as all of our brains have been, from time to time--by the "mainstream" disease, the desire to shake off the kooties of the crazies and extremists and "conspiracy theorists" that the corporate news monopolies have identified as "untouchables." They generally don't identify them directly--they do it mostly by implication, by omission, by marginalization. But our unconscious minds get the message they are sending: that we ourselves don't have the strength of mind to hear out "crazy" views, for what we might find useful in those views, without being "crazy" ourselves. Daddy Media will tell you what's acceptable and what is not. And you had better fear his whacking hand when he tells you that you are an "extremist" or a "nut," or your friends are. He will banish you from his kingdom. You will get no media.

I remember reading similar pieces, in the leftist "establishment" press, about the anti-globalization protest in Seattle in 1999. Talk about prophets! And they were subjected to the same kind of ridiculing tone as this. Nuts. Crazies. Not serious. Marginal people. People who don't count. People with kooties. People that we on the serious left don't associate with.

I'm sorry to see this in Cockburn, and at CounterPunch. I wish he had thought things through, and not come from such a defensive place. As someone upthread suggested, he could help in the effort to get a real investigation, which is badly needed. No, it won't solve predatory capitalism or other grave ills. But open government is something. It's a start. And my suspicion is that the grave ill of predatory capitalism is at the heart of story. It could be a great help to the struggles of many people around the world to know what the truth of it is. (Just for example: What if Arabs DIDN'T do it? And, for another: What if U.S. war profiteering corporations DID?)

[Flarney]

31. Awesome post...

...thanks for saying it much more eloquently than I could have. I especially appreciate your last sentence "What if U.S. war profiteering corporations DID?"(9/11)

...imagine what our last half-century of American history would look like if we had a law that prohibited anyone from profiting from war in any way. No Vietnam, no Korea, neither of the Iraq invasions...and all of that money that was spent on killing and destruction had been used on educating our people, building long term infrastructure, scientific and medical R&D, eliminating the national debt, developing renewable energy sources, etc... what a shame...what a shameful waste.

Why should anyone be allowed to profit from war? Should there ever be a financial incentive to go to war? It seems pretty insane to me...

[yurbud]

30. What pushed his buttons to make him go after 9/11 people now? The charge of conspiracy theorist

doesn't exactly sting since it has been used about who said electronic voting machines could be rigged, that bush had enough info to prevent 9/11, and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, no WMD and no plausible reason to use them even if he did have them.

maybe something is in the pipe.

[CJCRANE]

32. I prefer to pay attention to the "Jersey Girls"

questions about 9/11. When they're answered I'll worry about conspiracy "nutters".

[teryang]

33. I cancelled my subscription to Counterpunch

He's out to lunch and so are his so called "experts."

[BridgeTheGap]

34. They still refuse to call Bush on what came out of his mouth

Public Testimony
Those of us who have held a distrust of the “establishment” for a long time now, yet maintain our fighting spirit, are not so surprised by the machinations of the standing order. We are rightly skeptical of the 9/11 Commission and its ability or inclination to reveal the truth about 9/11.

The current occupant of the White House is due to give his “not under oath” secret testimony soon before the 9/11 Panel – or part of the panel at any rate. One has to wonder if the panel will reflect the trend at work in the media to give Bush a “free pass” on his performance as a leader in responding to 9/11. Nothing more clearly illustrates this phenomenon than the following quotes that issued from the pResident’s own mouth. Their relevance to 9/11 is clear and their implications for Bush are staggering. This must explain why the U.S. media wouldn’t touch these with a 10 foot pole. Journalist Greg Palast was having a beer in the Orlando Airport, waiting for a flight back to England, when he witnessed the first of Bush’s statements on CNN.
“I nearly spit my beer out on the bar when I heard it. I fully expected the American press to jump on this, but the next morning, not a word.” This is what Palast heard and saw on CNN. The quote is still on the official White House web site:

"Well Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower--the TV. was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a terrible accident.’”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html

This quote could easily be written off as just another stupid “Bushism.” And surely, one would expect his handlers to reiterate the same words uttered by former Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer to: “Watch what you say.” So did the press write this statement off for this reason? There are plenty of quotes out there, books of them in fact, that give an indication of the “stature” of this man. But keep in mind that “Bush Dyslexicon” author, Mark Crispin Miller, contends that Bush is not stupid and that he can actually speak quite clearly when its something he cares about, say capital punishment, for example. Now the obvious question becomes (are you listening 9/11 Commission?): Why did Bush essentially repeat the same statement made in Orlando, a month later in California?

"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack.""
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html

Obviously, the press has not been willing to hold Bush accountable for these statements or much else, until the pretexts for invading Iraq started unraveling. The use of the events of 9/11 to justify invading Iraq, as well as justifying record deficits and curtailing civil liberties, are reason enough to bring up Bush’s performance in the wake of these tragic events. In fact, the Republicans are running ads touting his leadership abilities supposedly demonstrated in response to 9/11. So yes, it’s time for the media to revisit this man’s performance and ask some questions about the words that issued from his own mouth.