Leo’s attack amounted to little more than a diatribe against academicians who study language and cultures from a comparative POV. Professors involved in these studies were called “postmodernists”.

Those in the academic world who merely  pointed out the fact that language is an imperfect device to describe reality, were turned into   allies of the Islamic fanatics.  Back seat pilots to those  who drove those jetliners into the Twin Towers. 

Postmodernists, said Leo, are also guilty of the crime of denying reality.

Other right-wing nutters went on to blame 9/11 on multiculturalism. Multiculturalists they said, also deny reality. Multiculturists don’t believe that any society’s values are worth preserving, since the multiculturist views all societies as essentially equal.

These and other like views put out by the wingnuts are absurd on their face. Postmodernism is basically a theory of language. Postmodernists do not deny reality, they simply expose language for what it is, an imperfect tool for describing reality.

The rightists attempted to blame multiculturalism for 9/11;--an argument equally nonsensical.

Multiculturalism essentially views all societies as equal for the purpose of unbiased study.  Such a view is necessary for an academic carrying out unbiased study. 

Apparently simply being an academician and trying to be unbiased in the study of culture, is enough to merit  condemnation by the far right.

It all comes down to this:  Dare to  do social or cultural   research in an unbiased manner and pretty soon you’ll be accused of being a terrorist sympathizer.

University professors weren’t the only targets of the far right back in 2001. Entertainers got bashed too.  

Bill Maher got kicked off ABC for saying  that the 9/11 attackers were not cowards. That did him in.  Like a maddened bull, the right-wing media machine crashed up against ABC, calling Maher every name they could think of. Politically Incorrect was taken off the air.

The fact that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards (cowards do not drive jet-fueled bombs into buildings) meant nothing to those who wanted Maher out of a job. 

As if Mahar condoned 9/11 because he described the terrorists accurately!

Come now to the aftermath of 7/7. Who's the right blaming now?

A recent article in frontpagemag.com provides the answer.

The left, of course. 

The left and its “allies” were responsible for 7/7. If by any chance someone said something nice about a radical Islamic cleric or actually criticized President Bush, that person is somehow or another an “ally” of the bombers.

Perhaps someone thought that the idea of invading and occupying an Islamic country might be the wrong way to fight Islamic terrorists.  Say they actually said so in a public forum. Appeaser! yells out  frontpagemag.

Another accusation sometimes made is that the  left, is so “consumed with hatred of the West” that it “embraces” its would-be destroyers.

Again, irrational nonsense, but it's classic right-wing blame-gaming.

An interesting variant of the blame-everyone-and-everything-but-the-terrorists argument was recently put out by Joe Scarborough of MSNBC’s Scarborough Country.

Scarborough blames the London bombings on Americans who are not serious enough.

Yes, that’s right, lack of American seriousness causes terrorism.

Scarborough’s culprits?

Well, they’re a more interesting lot than John Leo’s. They include Ted Kennedy, rock stars, Hollywood actors, the French PM, and Paris Hilton.  Also rock promoters like Bob Geldorf.

Scarborough doesn’t like ‘em, so they must be allies of the London terrorists.

It all makes you wonder if it is asking too much for the right to stop it with the silly scapgoating and jerky demonizing when it comes to terrorism?

The John Leo’s and Joe Scarborough’s of the world would be far more credible if they were to start placing the blame for Islamic terrorism where it belongs; on the terrorists and the radical form of Islamic Jihad they practice.

As it stands now, they  use terrorist attacks to  push their  ideological or partisan POV.

Punditwalla--