9/11 and The Left

[Updated to include Robert Fisk]


Several prominent liberal writers are arguing that 9/11 is a distraction from the fight for liberal causes. Are they right?

Riddle Me This

Before I address that question, let me ask another one:

Q: What do Daniel Ellsberg, Lewis Lapham, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Thom Hartmann, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Marc Crispin Miller, Howard Zinn, Ray McGovern, Robert McChesney, Gore Vidal, Robert Fisk, Medea Benjamin, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Paul Hawken, David Cobb, Randy Hayes, Ernest Callenbach, Dennis Bernstein, Paul H. Ray, Michael Franti, Janeane Garafalo and Ed Asner all have in common?

A: All of these leading liberal voices question the Bush administration's account of what happened on 9/11.

(See this article and video, this short video, and this article, this short posting, this petition, this article, this book review , this review, and this one).

Moreover, Noam Chomsky is calling for the declassification of 9/11-related documents. Former ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson is dissatisfied with the government's explanation for 9/11. And the former president of the National Lawyers Guild and many other prominent progressive legal scholars question 9/11.

So before you go "representing" the liberal position on 9/11, take a look at what these prominent progressives have said.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Okay, now let's get down to substance.

The administration's false claims linking Iraq and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Iraq-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.

Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since 9/11, the American people have been terrified -- and thus irrational -- based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues -- including withdrawal from Iraq -- until "we get the bad guys".

Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any costs. Thus, the Saddam-911 deception was necessarily a precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.

I Spy

Indeed, the Bush administration is now using 9/11 as an excuse for domestic spying without warrant, and will use 9/11 as an excuse for every other unconstitutional, undemocratic, unAmerican destruction of civil liberties which it takes.


How about war with Iran? That's an important issue for liberals, isn't it? Well, Americans are still terrified about Arabs with weapons. Moreover, since Americans are still largely ignorant about the use of "false flag operations" by governments to justify wars, Americans will fall for a faked provocation. What am I talking about? Well, the National Security Adviser for President Carter recently told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation. Similarly, a current Congressman has said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran". And a progressive member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

In other words, if 9/11 was, in fact, a false flag operation, and that fact is not exposed by the left, then that will enable the neoconservatives to use another faked terror incident in order to justify a war against Iran.

Thus, 9/11 is central for those interested in peace.

The Reality Based Community?

Liberals proudly proclaim the superiority of rationality over propaganda, blind passion and illogic. Right?

If you spend even 5 minutes looking at how completely the government investigations into 9/11 have failed to meet even basic tests of rationality, you will realize that liberals must demand a new, impartial investigation.

Other Liberal Causes

What about other traditional liberal causes? What about global warming? Women's rights? Gay rights? Helping the poor? Other liberal causes? Well, as a blogger from the University of Winnipeg in Canada says:

"[failing to fully address what really happened on 9/11] will only serve to undermine all they would otherwise hope to accomplish -- in terms of the environment and social equity -- and for one fundamental reason: ... it is the war on terror that is the primary "displacement activity" burying progressive causes, not 911 skepticism.

The war on terror is such a potent metanarrative that it is driving a host of policy decisions -- even in an otherwise progressive nation as Canada -- that are sucking resources away from human needs, ecological conservation, climate change prevention and adaptation, poverty alleviation and peacemaking. Until this metanarrative is dismantled and revealed for the lethal and cynical fraud it is and always has been, causes supported by progressives will never be properly addressed.

9/11 may not have changed everything, but until this controversy can be openly addressed in the media and through a more objective investigation, we may be unable to change anything."

Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries. Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans were a generous and good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of other countries by reminding Germans that war is bad and peace is good? Do you imagine you could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights by writing about the desirability of civil liberties?

Of course not! The German people were whipped up into a state of hysteria and fear, because they thought they were under attack by communists, and Poles, and "bad guys" in general. The German's were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader. Without first exposing that the Reichstag fire and Operation Himmler - the two things which were the source and root cause of the German people's fears, and which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power -- the sweeping away of liberal causes by the wave of fear could not be stopped.

Similarly, Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist and Polish terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.

The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time. The German people could have been spared from the horrors inflicted on their nation and the world by the Nazis. And sanity and liberal values could have been saved in 1940's-era Germany.

As stated by a well-known liberal, George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

It's the media, stupid!

How can we get the majority of liberals to look into this when we have a COMPLICIT media that utterly and steadfastly *refuses* to give the 9/11 re-investigation movement any respect, let alone credibility? The corporate media is acting as main accessory to high treason and first degree murder. They are the primary reason that so many Americans are STILL in the dark and why the so-called independent or alternative media are STILL (mostly) closed to giving 9/11 a further look. Cognitive dissonance is inevitable. But it's exacerbated by a media that functions are informational gatekeeper. The media NEVER EVER treats its audience the way it needs and deserves to be treated: like adults.

Why are people not constantly in the streets FORCING the media to cover this? Truth squads are great. But they need to become truth blocs, and then truth contigencies. And instead of going after politicians to provide the same non-answers they always give, why not instead shift the main focus toward journalists, especially alternative outlets that act as 'left-gatekeepers'?

Point is, the media has gotten off way too easily from the 9/11 truth and justice movement and that needs to change before the next false-flag attack which will herald in a new era of unparalleled tyranny.
Even many within the truth movement don't seem to accurately estimate the urgency we now face. Time IS of the essense.


I've found it'd best to just never mention 9/11 Truth to liberals. I get nowhere with them. I don't know if it's that they trust Gov't more or that they just want to continue to feel superior by thinking of Bush et al as incompetent. What ever it is makes the ones I've been around way to closed to the idea to even look at the vids, let alone read up on the scientific stuff. Funny too since they are mostly acedemics and are supposed to be open minded.


Liberals, particularly college educated (which is a demographic feature), are arrogant. They view themselves as more enlightened than that 'other brand', but, because of that, they think they have an understanding of various topics. They fail to think of at least two crucial issues. The first is that one is always working (perceptually/interpretativiely) from presuppositions about the way things are. The only way to hope to see things as they may actually be is to recognize presupppositional thinking - to recognize a belief is only an interpretation - and not the final one. Another is that old buggaboo of cognitive dissonance. It reflects negative affect influencing cogntion. Emotional bias leans the individual towards beliefs and presumptions which are safe. Then, the more the individual presents argumentation in his/her internal monologue, the more the investment in the familiar, defended position... which with respect to social, environmental, govt. etc., issues means commitment to safe liberal and/or official memes.

A problem is that many 'liberal' issues/memes actually are important and the liberal viewpoint is often the most reasoned at the level of data and depth the individual allows. This just makes rationalization (and actually intellectualization) much more potent in the liberal's effort to resolve cog-diss towards the familiar.

One must confront the search for truth. Discard the dross, the error, and instead recognize fact and attempt to make sense of reality without relying upon the old, safer modes of thought.

I'm afraid all are not cut out for it due to a variety of reasons. We must focus (individually) on those we know who may respond to careful argumentation and with our recognition of just how fearsome such an enterprise is for many people. How fearsome it was for probably each of us.

Oh, and as an aside, many people in the local 9/11 truth group we are forming are not liberals per se. They include evangelicals, blue collar, libertarian, conservative (actual conservatives) and liberal folks. Who have all recognized that the issues that divide us are not relevant and are resolved by mutual respect. The issues that connect us are substantive and dire. We are growing by coming to respect our differences and commonalities.

BTW, GW, nice posting. I hope you don't mind if I send it about.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)