Cui Bono?

Here in Austin at an academic conference where I met a committed 9/11 conspiracy believer.  His chief (in fact, as far as I can tell, his only) argument was "Bush got the USA PATRIOT ACT out of it!  He had the perfect motive!"  No other arguments needed, in his view.

That's silly, of course.  Whenever someone benefits from an event, naturally it's reasonable to use that fact to initiate or guide an investigation.  However, the only thing that counts as evidence of involvement is evidence of involvement.  Belief that a party benefited is not evidence of involvement.  Not for Bush and 9/11.  Not ever.

In the case of 9/11, this reasoning -- Bush benefited, therefore he did it -- is manifestly wrong.  Let's think about who benefited.  The Russians benefited tremendously.  Are they responsible for 9/11?  The French and the British and the Germans benefited enormously.  Are they responsible?  The Chinese and Indonesians benefited.  Did they do it?  Virtually every national security service on the planet benefited.  Did they all do it?

For that matter, what about Osama bin Ladin?  He certainly benefited.  He must have done it.  And don't tell me bin Laden didn't benefit.  He was the toast of his community for years after 9/11.  He achieved what he wanted.  Sure, he ended up in a cave for a while, presumably, but he spent several years, at least, ensconced in a veritable mansion in Abbottabad.

There are lots of false reasons for believing in some sort of 9/11 conspiracy by the U.S. government.  The "Bush benefited, therefore he did it" folks are among the silliest.