Seattle Weekly columnist Geov Parrish was quick to criticize the media for "rushing to judgment" about the terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center. Parrish and other lefties claimed the media's early speculation that Islamic radicals were behind the attack was irresponsible and racist. But it was Parrish's predictable critique of the media that was irresponsible. Or, at least, ridiculous.

Parrish and other lefties' insistence that news commentators play dumb in the face of immediate and almost overwhelming circumstantial evidence makes the political left look stupid. I mean, come on, you've got to be pretty stupid not to suspect that the destruction of a U.S. landmark by suicide bombers was the work of Islamic radicals, especially when the landmark had previously been targeted by Islamic radicals. And suspecting as much doesn't make you a racist. It makes you observant. "I knew... it's someone Muslim," says Waheed Khalid, a gas station owner and president of his local mosque in New Jersey, who was quoted in The New York Times about his reaction to the bombing.

Anyone who follows world events knows that tensions between America and Islamic militants had risen to a boil. The mounting war between Israelis and Palestinians placed the U.S.--a steadfast Israeli ally--in militant Islamic sites. Moreover, the media's leading suspect, Osama bin Laden, had been threatening to attack American facilities as recently as two weeks ago. Chastising the media for putting September 11 in context and reporting the leading suspects is like chastising the media for speculating that the guys who murdered Matthew Shepard were homophobes. Why should the public be shielded from well-grounded, contextual analysis?

More importantly, reporting on the context of the attack (the anger of Islamic militants) might actually get people asking the next question: Why are parts of the Arab world so enraged? That question might actually start a conversation about U.S. foreign policy, like, say, our lopsided support of Israel or our backing of corrupt regimes from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to the former Shah of Iran?

The mainstream media's so-called rush to judgment was, if anything, exceedingly cautioned. Neither Osama bin Laden's name nor the words "Islamic militant" can be found anywhere on the September 12 New York Times front-page spread. Indeed, most news reports, when making the Pearl Harbor comparison, stressed one giant difference: This time, we don't know who the enemy is.

As to the famous example of the media's rush to accuse Islamic militants immediately after the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, let's look at the record. This is from USA Today's front-page story from April 20, 1995: "The bombing... could have been the latest salvo in a holy war by Islamic radicals or a war by white supremacists--or even tax evaders. ...It could have been a revenge attack... [David Koresh's] headquarters burned to the ground two years ago to the day in Waco, Texas."

This is from the Washington Post's front-page story on the same day: "Officials said they were pursuing three basic theories about who staged the bombing: Muslim radicals similar to those convicted of staging the World Trade Center bombing in New York two years ago; extremists who hate the federal government, including white supremacists active in western states...."

Anyone who was paying attention to political events in 1995 would have suspected both the radical anti-U.S. factions from the Middle East and the homegrown radical right. Ruby Ridge, Waco, the anti-government Gingrich movement, and the rise of neo-Nazi militia groups were all familiar elements in 1995. In 2001, however, the radical right's homegrown terror movement has subsided. For example, the training compound outside Coeur d'Alene, Idaho doesn't exist anymore. But given this summer's stewing warfare on the West Bank and Gaza Strip and recent threats from Osama bin Laden, it is legitimate and reasonable to suspect--and report--that Islamic radicals were most likely behind the attack.

When I heard about the attack, I immediately concluded that a radical Islamic group was behind it. This wasn't a rush to judgement, but a rush to acknowledgement. We are directly and politically involved in the lives of people half a world away, and that involvement has put us on a collision course with forces who oppose our influence. On Tuesday, September 11, we could deny it no longer. Speculation in the media that radical Islamic groups were behind the attack was not a rush to judgment. It was solid reporting.