Here's a nice little quote I happened upon today, and all too relevant with what I want to talk about next:

"We want the facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don't, it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions."

That's from American writer Jessamyn West. Now, as for my main topic, keep that in mind. What is the topic you ask? Well, it's pretty serious, so a couple of you will probably switch off, but bear with me. Recently, i.e. within the past 24 hours, a video has gone up on YouTube, from Fox News, interviewing Bill Clinton, and, hand-in-hand with the "true-to-truth" show Path to 9/11, blaming him and his government for Osama Bin Laden still being alive and 9/11 effectively. Clinton holds his own very well, but lets think about this, and the quote I gave you, a little more.

Everyone thinks, and probably with some degree of correctness, the actual 9/11 events could have been stopped. Albeit, it would have required a stacked deck on the States' behalf and a hell of a lot of luck, but but they could have picked up on "warning signs" and the like. However, the 9/11 concept and idealistic event, I feel, was inevitable. If it wasn't the events that happened on 9/11 it could have been something worse two and a half years later. It could have been anything, really. But there is this preconceived notion that the events could have been stopped, yes?

So, after watching that interview and the show Path to 9/11, what facts are being forgotten, ignored, replaced and construed to fit that preconceived notion? I'm not some left-wing nut who can tell you everything good that Clinton did during his run as President that hindered terrorists, but nor can I tell you what he did right. But what I can tell you is this: there was no modern-day "Dummies Guide to a Terrorist Attack (and how to prevent one)" because the type of event characterised by 9/11 had never happened to America before: had never happened in the World before. Granted there were embassy bombings, kidnappings, etc. etc. prior to, but some of those were just pissed off nations looking to get recognised or some cause out in the open, and the others were single events.

Is that to say America didn't care? Of course not. They went after those who were responsible. That's a fact. They didn't kill him: that's a fact too. But what of these two facts are being ignored for the preconceived notion that 9/11 could have been prevented, but the opposite political party did nothing? And guess what's happening soon? The political divide will be rip-roared into high gear as, yes, elections are held. A coincidence, maybe (hell, almost certainly unlikely, that the most recent left-wing President is being forced onto the back-foot? And what facts are going to be ignored for the preconceived notion that "It's bad to change horse midstream" and you should elect whatever right-wing nut-bar they pull out of the works for the next election? That a war they instigated is, in reality, hurting their efforts against 'fighting' terrorism and is endangering more U.S. lives? The fact that more American soldiers have died than those who were victims of 9/11, an event that (without a doubt) triggered a war to save American lives?

Just ask yourself those questions, and remember that quote, next time some hot potato like all these events and 'attacks' happen.

Thomas.