[lbo-talk] 9/11 Probe is the new terror

Chip Berlet cberlet at igc.org
Fri Mar 5 15:45:54 PST 2004


Hi,

I think Wanzala's post is an excellent example of why consirqacism is a waste of time. I have responded below.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Wanzala [mailto:jwanzala at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:47 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] 9/11 Probe is the new terror
>
>
> It is interesting to note how speculation about the mysteries
> of 9-11 is no
> longer the preserve of marginal conspiranoids, but has become
> an issue you
> can talk about in tones above a whisper...

The original Newsday article is a sensible discussion of power politics. It in no way supports the baseless and hyperbolic claims of many of the "conspiranoids." Nor was it ever necessary to "whisper" the rumors-posing-as-facts spread by the conspiracists. They have plastered their unsupported claims all over the web, and their books pollute popular bookstores at the expense of valuable trees. The implication that there was a suppression of conspiracy claims is laughable. It is not censorship or suppression of the truth when Pacifica radio station staff decide that someone like Ruppert makes a lot of claims, but actually has little solid evidence to back up those claims. That's called editorial judgement.


> many of those who
> expended much
> energy attacking those (of us) who raised these questions
> two-three years
> ago - Steve Rendell, Michael Pugliese, David Corn, Norman
> Solomon and of
> course the inimitable Chip Berlet to name a few, seem to have
> lost their
> ardor.

All of us named above have consistently supported a full probe of the circumstances leading to 9/11. We all are aware that governments often lie and engage in coverups. The attempt to imply otherwise is a nasty distortion of the facts. Many of us have written award-winning stories and books that expose government misconduct, corporate skullduggery, or bigotry.

Furthermore, the Newsday article raises legitimate and sensible questions that in no way reflect the ludicrous claims and questions by the conspiracists. None of us named above have lost our ardor for serious research and investigative reporting. And we still complain about hucksterism and gossip-mongering posing as serious research and investigative reporting. We are not "the left gatekeepers," we are simply reporters who argue in favor of minimal journalistic standards and basic intellectual loyalty to the rules of logic.


>To be sure, this article is restrained compared to
> some of the sexier
> stuff out there, but it is certainly raising the very
> questions that were
> dismissed most charmingly by Larry Bensky on KPFA as 'recreational
> speculation'.

This is false. The Newsday article is not covering the same ground as the bizarre questions and claims raised by the conspiracists that Bensky was criticizing. Bensky's phrase "recreational speculation" hits the mark.


> I think partly what is going on is that we face
> a situation
> where so strong is the resolve to rid ourselves of Bush 'at
> any cost', that
> conspiray stuff is increasingly winked at rather than
> attacked.

A more likely answer is that there is so much factual material showing wrongdoing by Bush and Co. that the weak claims (with little evidence to support them) by Michael C. Ruppert, Michel Chossudovsky, and others are increasingly ignored in favor of more reliable claims backed by actual evidence that is convincing to a broader range of people. I do not doubt that Ruppert and Chossudovsky are sincere. I just can see that they fail to make a solid case for their grandiose and hyperbolic claims.

I note that recently Michel Chossudovsky has taken to citing LaRouchites for evidence. Very convincing when a "progressive" cites fascist antisemites.

Ruppert continues to plug the baseless story about a government conspiracy behind the jets not flying out of Andrews, written by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_20_01_911murder.html

And Ruppert still supports the discredited Vreeland: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/index.html#vree

And Ruppert still supports April Oliver's CNN Tailwind story despite the detailed critique written by Jerry Lembcke: "CNN's Tailwind Tale: Inside Vietnam's Last Great Myth." (and there is an excellent review of the Lembcke book by LBO's own Stephen E Philion). See the intersting exchange on Tailwind at: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/sfa_response.html

All conspiracist claims are thin gruel compared to what left and mainstream reporters are dishing out about the Bush Administration and the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11.


> Still the
> best work on exposing the lies around 9-11 is being done at
> the two extreme
> of the media spectrum - front and center of the mainstream and at the
> margins of the internet badlands - the center-left
> progressive arew still
> too shy to dance, but at least they will no longer try to
> turn down the
> volume.

The best work is not being done by "left" and right conspiracy cranks. This is absurd. The most lurid, unconvincing, shamelessly-hyped work is being done by these hucksters.

Those of us who are progressive investigative reporters are not too shy to dance...we just don't like to tango with fascists on the political right. The last time the left and right joined to dance against the conspiracy of the "corrupt regime" they ended up dancing on a lot of graves. Carved into the base of a statue at the National Archive it says: "What is Past is Prologue."

We also like to have music we can dance to--not a cacophony of sounds claiming that there would be music if we could just connect the dots.

We never tried to "turn down the volume" for voicing facts, we criticized people who claimed they had facts when all they had was an endless supply of hot air.

If you want good, solid, convincing material to attack the Bush Agenda in particular and human right abuses in general, visit any of the websites listed here:

National Progressive Pro-Democracy Research Groups

http://rightweb.irc-online.org http://www.movingideas.org http://www.arc.org http://www.thecdr.org http://www.chre.org http://www.myerscenter.org http://www.datacenter.org http://www.rethinkingschools.org http://nwcitizen.com/publicgood http://www.hrec.org http://www.westernstatescenter.org http://www.ngltf.org/pi/index.cfm http://www.newcomm.org http://www.pfaw.org http://www.fair.org http://www.buildingequality.us/ifas http://www.fair.org http://www.fair.org/extra/index.html http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/ http://www.buildingequality.us/index.html http://www.publiceye.org

Why waste your time with people who cannot prove their claims, when you can read material by investigative reporters and researchers and analysts with a proven track record of producing solid stories backed by solid evidence?

The conspiracy mongers are the cyberspace equivalent of the old carnival snake oil hucksters. Buyer beware. Geeks and hucksters may grab your attention, but don't let them grap your analysis.

To parody Strunk & White:

Conspiracism is a waste of time. Conspiracism is a waste of time. Conspiracism is a waste of time.

Chip Berlet

(Always omiting needless words)


>
> 9/11 probe is a new terror
> Ellis Henican - Newsday
>
> February 28, 2004, 3:47 PM EST
>
> WASHINGTON - Who was most scared of the truth?
>
> Was it House Speaker Dennis Hastert? He was the latest
> Republican standing
> in the way of the bipartisan commission investigating the
> Sept. 11 terror
> attacks. The commissioners had asked for two extra months to
> conduct some
> crucial interviews and track down some late-breaking leads. Until he
> relented Friday afternoon, Hastert was refusing to bring the
> short extension
> up for a vote.
>
> Or is George W. Bush the one with the most to hide?
>
> While voicing support for the 9/11 probe, he and those around
> him have been
> working diligently to undermine the commission's work, going
> all the way
> back to before the investigation began.
>
> So was Hastert's latest roadblock really just a political
> favor to his good
> friend the president, who'd just as soon not have an explosive report
> dropped into the late-July heat of a re-election campaign? It sure is
> looking that way.
>
> The mission of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
> Upon the United
> States, despite the highfalutin name, is really quite
> straightforward:
> Explain what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 - and why.
>
> Co-chaired by Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, the
> bipartisan panel has approached its difficult mission with
> extraordinary
> balance and seriousness. This is, after all, the most nagging single
> question of our time. What's the real story behind 9/11?
>
> New York lost nearly 3,000 people that day.
>
> We - and especially their families - have a right to know the
> truth. The
> commission has been asking some uncomfortable questions about what
> Washington knew, including the single most pressing one:
> Could the attacks
> somehow have been avoided or stopped?
>
> No one knows exactly why George W. Bush seems so reluctant to
> let the truth
> come out. Had someone tried to warn him about an imminent
> attack? Were there
> embarrassing predictions in the daily presidential briefing?
> If Sept. 11 was
> truly a life-altering experience for the nation, shouldn't
> all of us know
> the cold, hard facts?
>
> If you listened only to Bush's rhetoric, you'd think he was a
> major booster
> of the inquiry. Indeed, he said he supported the extension.
>
> "We have given extraordinary cooperation," he told Tim
> Russert a couple of
> weeks ago. "I want the truth to be known." Bush told Russert
> on "Meet The
> Press" that he'd be pleased to testify and was turning over his daily
> briefing reports.
>
> That's what the president said. Now follow the trail of what
> he has done.
>
> At first, Bush was opposed to the whole idea of the
> commission. Under strong
> pressure from Republicans and Democrats, he ultimately
> relented. But he
> never seemed too enthusiastic about the probe.
>
> Commission members wanted the right to subpoena witnesses.
> The White House
> opposed that, relenting only when the subpoena rules were
> tightly limited.
>
> Bush told Russert he'd release those daily-briefing forms.
> Then, that too
> was tangled up in restrictions: Only to the chairmen, not to
> be shared with
> other members, only summaries. That is still being wrangled out.
>
> Then there was the question of whether Bush and Vice
> President Dick Cheney
> would testify. Security adviser Condoleezza Rice agreed to speak only
> briefly, in private and on a weekend. Bush told Russert he'd
> love to appear.
> Then he began dragging his feet.
>
> Only in private, he said.
>
> Only with the chairmen.
>
> Only for an hour.
>
> We'll see if it happens at all.
>
> On Friday, the Senate acted in the morning, approving the
> extra two months.
>
> By lunchtime, Dennis Hastert was still hanging tough,
> refusing to budge on
> the extension. But the pressure was building hard.
>
> Trade center victims' family members were phoning down from New York.
> Republican legislators were joining Democrats in calling for
> the extra
> months. John McCain and Joe Lieberman demanded an answer fast.
>
> The only one not pressuring Hastert, it seemed, was George W.
> Bush, who in
> theory supported the extension but sure wasn't making much
> effort to see it
> happen.
>
> Finally, Hastert caved.
>
> "I want your commission to do a thorough job," he said, "but
> I also believe
> that we must have your recommendations soon in order to give
> the Congress
> adequate time to act on them." Come July, it'll be
> interesting to see what
> they're all so scared about.
> Copyright (c) 2004, Newsday, Inc.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
> http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list