Today is about 9/11/2001.

There's only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?

The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.

How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?

In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?

The gov't lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov't lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov't lied about 9/11?

Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

This post I don't get at all, except that Prof. Drezner wants to be snarky--but not substantive in any way--about President Bush. Is it wrong to say that the U.S. would like to capture bin Laden, but it isn't the centerpiece of our terrorism policy? Obama was making noises about war with Pakistan, but I don't think anyone takes that seriously. If Prof. Drezner thinks military operations in Pakistan would be a good idea, that would really be an interesting post.

And if the point is that Bush is unfocused or fickle, that seems like the exact opposite of the truth.

Seems that the point of the post is that the Administration, which ties most of its foreign policy decisions (and many of its domestic policy decisions, too) to 9/11, is about as serious about finding the man actually most responsible for 9/11 as OJ Simpson is about finding the real killers. After having lead many (or is it still most?) Americans to believe that Saddam had a significant connection to 9/11.