People (unconvincingly, to me, and probably to anyone who's not suffering selective amnesia about the runup to the war) accuse George W. Bush of shifting justifications after 911, but how about shifting justification for 911?

...bin Laden's justifications for 9/11 are continually moulded and shaped by Western media coverage. At first - on 28 September 2001 - he disavows responsibility for the attacks, instead trying to pin the blame on some dastardly conspiracy within America itself: 'The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself….persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilisation, nation, country or ideology could survive…. Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem [with] the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy…. Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.'

The denial of the left that they are in the tank for America's enemies, regardless of how much they are in opposition to traditional "liberal" or "progressive" goals, is growing (has grown?) completely indefensible.

What? You lost me there.

Are you saying a bunch of us think bin Laden wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks? I imagine there might be a few, but don't froth up too much at that. Most everyone I know on the liberal side would like to help stick the knife in him.

Are you going off what the media says about us or what we say about us?

Are you saying a bunch of us think bin Laden wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks?

Ummmm...

No.

The thesis is that a bunch of leftists (including some Democrats) agree with bin Laden that he was justified in attacking the west, and seem to worship his preachings.

oh...

I see your concern then.

While some of us can understand his anger and comprehend his motivation, many of us don't think he was justified. I have no problem with you and others being upset at those who do. I join with you.

Thank you, Alfred.

I'm pleased to see that not all Dems are nuts, but the number who seem to be disturbs me greatly.

I should add, that your comment seems to be based on my excerpt. I highly recommend that you follow the link, and read the whole thing. It wasn't written by a "right wingnut." Brendan O'Neill is a "progressive." But a sane one.