In India, officials were held accountable by the public following the recent terrorist rampage, the press demanded an explanation for their failure in preventing the attacks and for the tardy response after they began. Heads have rolled; for example the individual in charge of security resigned within days. This pattern plays out in other countries as well following attacks. But not here. There was no great hue and cry starting 9/12/01 for an explanation from General Myers for the lack of air defenses, nor from Mueller over at the FBI; they claimed to be as surprised as everyone else. That won't fly in India.

And it shouldn't here. But it did. And still does - not one person in a position of authority on 9/11 has ever been so much as demoted, rather a number of have been promoted. But you know all that. Most people don't know all that. Most still haven't stopped to even think of it.

That is why this lawsuit, despite some problems I have with the full text, is important; it calls to attention the actions of those charged to protect us on that day and demands in a court of law explanation and accountability. It goes one step further; it aims to prove criminal conduct. But even if it gets tossed by the Judge before discovery can begin, it is still valuable because it is another voice out there, just when you thought none were left with the energy to make the attempt, a voice demanding answers and accountability, reminding us that something very odd happened that day - a complete intelligence and defense systems failure that defies explanation, other than everyone was so surprised and confused they managed to bungle every move to protect us and their own defense center...the Pentagon.

Imagine how the people in India would react if they got the same explanation. Mass demonstrations, strikes, shut downs, sit ins at government buildings.

So let's be happy at least that we have this lawsuit popping up seven years later. I hope it isn't dismissed, despite the putting the cart before the horse case for conspiracy it presents in the text, stating there was a conspiracy and then proving it with facts and assertions. If this one (I recall at least one earlier lawsuit - by a WTC widow) gets going, then the discovery phase would prove very interesting.

But I doubt it will be the one to take us down that rabbit hole. If it had stuck to the core argument, which is, to summarize, defendant's "failures" to exercise their duties on that day caused plaintiff's injuries, then it might have stood a chance of passing the first hurdle, leading to the discovery phase. A factual account of the Pentagon timeline and lack of response by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Myers is the heart of the thing. Maybe I'm wrong and it will move forward anyway, or because of that. This is a transition period we're in so surprising things can happen.

At the very least, we do need to ask questions of these people and hold them to account. Especially now, as they attempt to rewrite history with the Bush legacy push.