I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn. I think some very good questions have been raised. In that regard there's some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there.That was Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina talking to Glenn Beck about whether she thinks the government was involved in 9/11. And this is total horseshit. I mean, I have no idea whether she actually believes that the government was involved or if she's just trying to impress the folks who do, but it's obvious that she's playing a simpleton's game with words here and imagines we're all too stupid to see it.
Because people just don't talk this way normally, even about things they're not sure about. Like me, I'm agnostic on religion. I don't know if there are any gods or any sort of real system that puts this all together. And so I just say that I don't know. I abstain from making a judgment on the matter. I find religious discussions to be extremely interesting, but only from an academic standpoint and really won't commit myself to any of it. Because I simply can't make judgments about things that aren't knowable.
But that's not what Medina did. For as much as she's pretending to be keeping an open-mind about it all, she's clearly not agnostic on the subject. Because she not only is willing to entertain these questions, but thinks they're good questions. And that there are "very good" arguments supporting it. And she outright states that there's evidence supporting the position. And that's not agnosticism, folks. That's statement of belief.
And trying to hide behind the guise of open-minded questions doesn't fool anyone. I mean, if I suggested that there were good questions which suggest the existence of God, I'm not agnostic. And if I think there is evidence of God's existence, I'm a believer. There's just no two ways about it. Anyone who suggests otherwise is selling something.
Answering the Questions
And sure, I'll entertain questions about whether the government was involved in 9/11, just as I'll entertain questions about the existence of gods. But only from an academic perspective. And once the hypothetical debate is over, I'll go back to not knowing about the existence of gods and think it's batshit crazy that anyone might imagine a government which wanted an excuse to attack Iraq would do so by attacking its own citizens and blaming it on people with no connection to Iraq. That'd be like if Hitler burned down the Reichstag and pinned it on the Americans as an excuse to attack anti-American communists.
I mean, if attacking Saddam was the purpose of 9/11, they would have pinned it on Saddam. Duh! But instead, they wasted large amounts of credibility in vain attempts to connect Saddam to the attacks; which would have been unnecessary if they had planned the attacks. And so yeah, sure, maybe there are questions we can't answer about 9/11 (though I've generally found that many of these questions have been answered, which the questioners refuse to accept), but until they can answer the question of why we pinned it on Al Qaeda when Iraq and Iran were our targets, I don't see how they have any questions to stand on.
And hey, if the 9/11 Truthers insist that Cheney works in mysterious ways and all this can only be accepted on faith, I guess I'll just have to become outright agnostic on the issue. After all, logic's all I've got and if you insist it's not good enough, then I'm not going to fight you. But if they expect us to think they've got reasonable questions, they've got to act reasonable. And that means they've got a lot of answers to give too.