Criticism of 9/11 theorists vs. government officials' accounts

I don't have an issue with criticism of 9/11 theorists like Stephen Jones. I think his theories and expertise are fair game.

IMO it often seems people who object to Jones' theories do not seem to get as upset with the accounts put forth by government officials. For example, former CIA Director Tenet has claimed that poor training concerning cable sharing procedures explains why the FBI was not alerted (much sooner than late August 2001) to the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the US. Tenet would have the public believe that instead of briefing the FBI directly he decided to rely on cable sharing procedures. His account makes no sense at all.

I don't get the double standard. Again, I'm not suggesting Jones should get a pass. I just find it strange that Tenet's bizarre account is not held to the same degree of scrutiny. IMO, Tenet's account should be held to a higher standard since he was directly involved in the lead up to 9/11 and helped justify the post 9/11 tactics which were based on the so called 'lessons of 9/11.'

Related article: Link

Tenet is an incompetent who should lose his pension and medal of freedom.

He is stonewalling to cover his ass over the failure of the umpteen billion dollar US intelligence apparatus that did nothing to act on a somewhat steady stream of actionable intelligence.

I don't think I've seen anyone on DU defending Tenet.

I submit he received that medal for helping the administration cover *their* ass.

Good golly, one needn't go to great lengths to realize what an utter liar and stooge is George Tenet.... faithfully sitting behind Colin Powell during his lies before the UN about WMD in Iraq. The man is a motherlode of bullshit. That's a "slam dunk".

Are you suggesting that someone here has been arguing that George Tenet is some sort of model of integrity, and that assertion has been given a free pass by anyone in this forum?

I'd like to see a link to that thread.

to a higher standard than Jones or Griffin because he was directly involved in the lead up to 9/11 and directly involved in implementing the post 9/11 WoT tactics.

IMO, it doesn't make sense to call 9/11 skeptics 'unpatriotic conspiracy nuts' when the CIA Director cannot account for his own actions.

is not humping ridiculous theories like Jones.

I don't know of anyone much less a DU'er calling 9/11 skeptics "unpatriotic conspiracy nuts". Do you?

but is not treated as such for some reason. I call it a double standard bordering on absurdity.

Tenet is spinning his story to suit whatever he thinks the facts are or to protect his or others butts. There is no scientific measure of his perception verse others perception.

Jones is humping ridiculous notions that are measured by science. He is proven to be be out in left field.

To my knowledge, Tenet is not engaged in neutralizing progressives by sucking them into unproductive fantasies based on far right political theories.

Nobody is wandering into DU for the purpose of proclaiming the truth of anything George Tenet says.

Find me this George Tenet proponent here, and I'll be happy to go argue with him or her. Just post a link to the relevant thread where anyone is trying to persuade DU'ers that George Tenet is other than a slimeball.

Thanks in advance.

people who question 9/11 are engaged in "unproductive fantasies based on far right political theories?" That sounds contradictory considering Tenet's account is a key aspect of the 9/11 Commission account...ie...systemic failures. If you are using a 'one size fits all' conflation argument it would be nice if you could point that out.

I'm not suggesting people on DU are defending Tenet. I'm suggesting Tenet's deception matters more than the speculation put forth by the likes of Griffin and Jones. Right wing pundits suggest that 9/11 skeptics are unpatriotic conspiracy nuts. I find the association offensive because it is pure authoritarianism and has been an extremely effective tactic used to shield corrupt officials from accountability.

I have no doubt it sounds contradictory to you, because you believe in a false dichotomy.

I follow a lot of litigation, and have seen plenty of situations where both the plaintiff and the defendant were full of crap.

Tenet's account of anything is ass-covering for the monumental distraction of the Bush administration by its fantasy view of the world through which they determined their priorities.

Our president, and those around him, do not have a very good grip on reality, and that is what makes them dangerous.

If you have a problem with right wing pundits, go find some and argue with them. Frankly, I am every bit as sick, tired, and offended at being called a shill for the Bush administration, closed minded, and a litany of other things because I don't buy into the CT bullshit that is offered as a substitute for the Bush administration's bullshit.

And if someone wanders in here to argue that the Bush administration demonstrated any reality based leadership either before or after 9/11, I'm pretty sure they will be met with as much passionate argument as the proponents of non-reality-based theories of 9/11.

He was more hands on in the lead up to 9/11 than Bush. If his story doesn't add up that calls into question the entire 9/11 Commission report.

IMO, it is a dishonest argument to suggest that 9/11 skeptics are full of it while downplaying the significance of Tenet's (among others) deception.

I have a problem with self righteous debunkers who IMO employ double standards in their analysis.