>Doug writes:
>
>
>"You're not the only one. Conspiracism is the class politics of fools."
>
>I'm a little lost here. We all agree that the current regime is a
>danger to the world and ought to be removed -- even in the absence
>of socialist revolution. Right?
>Since 9/11 many, many questions have been left unanswered; in fact,
>this administration has made no effort to determine how it happened
>-- if effort is measured in terms of $$ and time spent. So, either
>they were fools (they didn't know it was going to happen) or they
>were knaves (they knew it was going to happen but didn't let on
>because it was so helpful for it to happen) or (they didn't know it
>was going to happen, but once it did, it was more important to use
>it to advance their own agenda than to determine the cause) or (they
>played a more direct role in making it happen). But if the govt is
>indeed responsible for protecting the safety of its people (which
>Bush himself argues by waging his fight on "terrorism"), then, by
>any account they are knaves because they are not carrying out their
>responsibility to determine who was actually responsible for the
>damage done. If they don't know, how can they prevent it from
>happening again? Moreover, they must be conspiring knaves !
>because they must surely work together to pull in the same direction.
>
>So what exactly is so foolish about talking about conspiracies? This
>is a real, not a rhetorical question. Maybe I just don't really
>understand what "conspiracy" means.
On 9/11, the "conspiracist" version is that Bush did it, or the Mossad did it. Saying that the Bush admin wants to block an investigation isn't conspiracist - it's a fact. I think the major reason they want to block it is because it'd reveal that they fucked up bigtime, not that they recruited the hijackers.
Doug