--you guys start from the wrong premise, namely that a conspiracy is necessary to maintain the power structure of corporate capitalism. ------------------ To date, not one Left progressive intellect or journalist has presented his or her explanation of the events of September 11, 2001. Not one Left presentation has noted, much less explained, the vast array of irregularities, official lies, and continuing falsehoods that have been routinely exposed by independent investigators.
--i'd say you don't read much on the left.
------------------------------------------ n fact, the Left has from the start fully embraced the official version of events without accurate critical analysis of even easily available facts. Immediately, Left voices fell into line with the Bush administration's elaborate fabrications and pretexts of a "war on terrorism", helping cement this gigantic lie into public consciousness,
--really? how so? chomsky supports the war on terror by not believing that Jewish workers in the WTC were told to stay home? or by not believing that the planes were unmanned? -------------------------------------- A now-classic example of this slippery Left treatment of 9/11 is exemplified by Noam Chomsky in his book "9-11", which even begins with the ridiculous declaration that 9/11 was "the first time the US has been attacked by foreigners on its own soil since the War of 1812"---this despite no investigation of actual fact. Chomsky has continued to deny 9/11 as "hopelessly implausiable internet theory", even as the Bush adminstration itself and corporate media organs have increasingly admitted 9/11 coverup, even forcing the creation of a number of so- called investigative panels to quiet the controversy today.
--au contraire, he's merely questioned whether or not it is terribly important if there was a 'conspiracy' in order to condemn the war on terror. what is lost if there was no 'conspiracy'? does it lessen any our need to oppose the war on terror? ------------------------------------------- If 9/11 were as easily dismissable as Fisk asserts, then what explains all of the official scrambling going in? Why is the Bush administration and all of its subsidiaries refusing to come clean? Why are they refusing to even hand over documents to Congressional fix-it officials?
--seems rather consistent with the way they deal with most such committee demands. what is new about that? or conspiratorial? what's the big deal in any event, they obviously are embarrassed about the way their mid-east policy led the US (under Bush, Clinton,....) to give an easy pass to the potential threats posed to Americans from groupings like al qaeda et al. why that has to lead us to insist that Bush had something to do with 9-11 is not clear at all. What if, after all, Bush had nothing to do with 9-11, does that then make the war on terror ok? ------------------------------------- The Left, for the most part, has assisted coverup of every major government crime in modern history, from the 1960s assassinations, to Iran-Contra, to the present.
--oh yeah, i can go through a chomsky book and have a really hard time finding that kind of information!! hah! --------------------------
The Left (or the construct that it became since COINTELPRO,Operation Mockingbird, and other programs destroyed what was genuine anti-war/ anti-imperialism, post-Vietnam) has routinely dismissed blatant high office as inconsequential---and attacked those who properly raise alarm.
--as opposed to whom? I don't recall running into many conspiracy theorists on strike lines or organizing workers into unions...I guess we might have failed on the "facts", but at least we have priorities clear.