[lbo-talk] Fisk avoiding facts? really?

[Joseph Wanzala]

What you are discussing here cannot be ascribed to any investigative 
reporter who researches government/corporate subterfuge with relation to 
9-11, the JFK assasination or any other related topic. No 'conspiracy' 
researcher is driven by a need to prove the innate benevolence of the 
Democratic Party, in fact, most so-called 'conspiracy theorists' start from 
the premise that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans 
and the covert channels through which real political power is exercised are 
not tied to one party or the other. In other words the Dems and Reps are 
seen as 'good cop'/'bad cop', not as opposites.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/06-17-02_Binion.pdf


>From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Fisk avoiding facts? really?
>Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:25:35 -0600
>
>
>
>cian wrote:
> >
> >
> > Note, none of the events described by Parenti happened in secret. It all
> > involved the organisations you would suspect, and the discussions took 
>place
> > in public. The more interesting question (and one that Chomsky, amongst
> > others, have tried to answer) is how they can take place so openly, and 
>yet
> > be ignored.
>
>(I agree that _all_, not just some, of the important and interesting
>conspiracies take place in the open, and can be discovered by anyone who
>reads the major capitalist newspapers.)
>
>I don't think there is one answer to Chomsky's question. I will suggest
>one reason that accounts for why one large group of liberals and
>leftists ignore them. See how often Democratic Party positions (or the
>position of this or that DP politician) is explained on the basis of the
>"cowardice" or the "dishonesty" of DP politicians. That is, consider the
>huge number of leftists and left-liberals who are unwilling to accept
>the fact that the DP's actions are in more-or-less perfect accord with
>its intentions. They believe that the DP is "really" on our side but
>simply lacks the courage to do what it knows is right.
>
>Clinton destroyed public aid because he intended to destroy public aid,
>_not_ because he was afraid to defend it and _not_ because he wanted to
>gain votes, but because he was against public aid in principle. In
>principle he really wanted more americans to suffer, because that was to
>the long-run advantage, he believed, of "The Nation" (i.e., an important
>sector of the ruling class).
>
>And Clinton destroyed the lives of millions of Iraqi citizens and
>prepared the way for Bush _not_ because he was afraid the Republicans
>would gain votes but because he really believed whole-heartedly that in
>order to maintain u.s. hegemony it was necessary and desirable to
>inflict visible pain on the people of any nation whose leaders did not
>leap to the u.s. will. He wasn't stupid. He knew Sadaam was no threat.
>He knew that u.s. oil supplies were safe regardless of who ruled in
>Iraq. But he believed that the whole world had to be taught a lesson,
>and that only large pain and misery for the people of Iraq could teach
>that lesson.
>
>And the majority of left liberals and far too many radicals and
>revolutionaries cannot recognize that open conspiracy because they have
>to believe in the basic good intentions of the DP. Just as people
>believe in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy because they want to hold
>on to their belief that some day, some where, there will be a DP
>President who will follow a progressive policy, and faith in Kennedy is
>a candle in the darkness to maintain that faith.
>
>Carrol
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_________________________________________________________________
Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups!  Get downloads, videos, 
and more here.  http://special.msn.com/entertainment/wiredformusic.armx