:Hi, I think Wanzala's post is an excellent example of why consirqacism is a
waste of time. I have responded below"
My reply to Berlet:
Berlet:"All of us named above have consistently supported a full >probe of the circumstances leading to 9/11."
Berlet and his like have insisted that the official version was correct, or refused to question it. He has engaged in character assassinations and flatulent hyperbole, while offering no factual counter-evidence. To this day, not one of the "great Left icons" has provided a factual analysis of the events of September 11, nor any convincing factual analysis of the history pre-dating and following the event that in any refutes the work of the most prominent researchers and scholars. Berlet, Corn and others always insist that they support probes and investigations (a form of passing the buck), while doing nothing to hold these investigators accountable, nor call into question how such "probes" are managed and who runs them. Tell us, Chip, about the backgrounds of the current 9/11 panel, and if you believe that their work has been superb. Tell us, Chip, if you are satisfied with such "probes" of Enron, Iran-Contra, BCCI, the assassinations of the 1960s, just to name a few. Go ahead, let's hear it.
Berlet:" We all are aware that governments often lie and engage in
>coverups. The attempt to imply otherwise is a nasty distortion of the facts."
"You" (all of "you") have refused to investigate the major government crimes of a generation, while attacking those who have compiled ironclad factual evidence (often based on declassified government documents, and the unvarnished testimony of criminal participants themselves). Again, absolutely no factual analysis has been provided that in any way refutes the investigations of those who have done the work.
Berlet: "Many of us have written award-winning stories and books that expose government misconduct, corporate >skullduggery, or bigotry."
"You" (all of "you") have largely refused to touch the realities behind the major events of our time. "You" have won awards (most of which were awarded by your own like-minded colleagues) for intellectually dishonest explorations of unimportant tertiary issues and irrelevant conspiracy theories (the "danger" posed by LaRouchites, an obvious one) that in no way address the true root causes of the systems under which we live. None of the flatulence and chest-beating makes up for the lack of factual substance, lacking over the course of entire careers.
Berlet: " Furthermore, the Newsday article raises legitimate and >sensible questions "
And who decides, Mr. Berlet, what is "legitimate" and "sensible"? You? Noam Chomsky? The CIA? Who?
Berlet: "that in no way reflect the ludicrous claims and questions by the conspiracists."
Who decides what is "ludicrous"? You? Who is a "conspiracist"? Is someone who obsesses over Lyndon LaRouche anything but an arch "conspiracist"?
Berlet: "None of us named above have lost our ardor for serious research and investigative reporting."
Who decides what is "serious"? You?
Berlet: " And we still complain about hucksterism and gossip-mongering posing as serious research and investigative reporting."
The pattern repeats over and over and over. Endless attacks at chosen targets. Endless insinuations and 100% subjective opinions about what is and is not "acceptable". No factual counter-case whatsoever. Just egotistical ranting.
Berlet: " We are not "the left gatekeepers,"
"You" certainly are gatekeepers. As well as Left wardens, torturers and coverup artists.
Berlet: "we are simply reporters who argue in favor of minimal journalistic >standards and basic intellectual loyalty to the rules of logic. "
Tell us again who sets such august "standards" (which most Left "icons" fail to meet themselves, while attacking those who courageously exceed them).
Berlet: " 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. "
In fact, the Newsday article barely scratches the surface, while covering much of the same material---years late, and years after the work of others had already exposed those issues. In fact, if the Newsday article had been published in 2002, Mr. Berlet and the other Left Gatemasters would have collaborated in withering attacks at the article's premises, as well as the writer's credentials. No matter how hard Mr. Berlet strains to justify and rationalize it away, it simply won't go away. It's called hypocrisy.
Berlet: "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 "
I challenge Berlet and any of his colleagues to factually address the four years of evidence, point by point, instead of playing the old insult-and-run game.
Berlet: " increasingly ignored"
In fact, the work of the individuals that Berlet attacks has been absolutely corroborated and vindicated.
Berlet: "in favor of more reliable claims backed by actual evidence that is convincing to a broader range of people."
This phrase is illogical and incoherent, particularly considering the fact that Berlet has not analyzed any of the evidence. True to form, he issues opinions and attacks regardless of this failure to address the factual evidence. What is "convincing to a broader range of people" is not necessarily the factual truth. Truth is not a popularity contest.
Berlet: "I do not doubt that Ruppert and Chossudovsky are sincere.
Oh yes, Berlet, you DO doubt their sincerity. You have expended a great deal of your career attempting to destroy the reputations of such people.
Berlet: "I just can see that they fail to make a solid case for their grandiose and hyperbolic >claims. "
I challenge the grandiose and hyperbolic Berlet to factually address every single piece of evidence, instead of simply squeezing off unfounded opinion upon unfounded opinion.
" I note that recently Michel Chossudovsky has taken to citing
>LaRouchites for evidence. "
I challenge Berlet to factually address the evidence.
Berlet:" 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 "
I challenge Berlet to address the facts and make a counter-case. Berlet also pretends that one of the main lines of inquiry of the 9-11 commission also is looking into the time line of events on Sept. 11 to determine why military planes were not scrambled faster, if at all, to divert the hijacked jetliners.
Berlet:" And Ruppert still supports the discredited Vreeland: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/index.html#vree "
I challenge Berlet to address the facts and make a counter-case, and give us the latest factual information about Vreeland (I dare Berlet. Go ahead, do it).
Berlet:" And Ruppert still supports April Oliver's CNN Tailwind story despite the detailed critique "
I challenge Berlet to address the factual evidence compiled by Oliver.
Berlet:"mainstream reporters are dishing out about the Bush Administration and the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11."
The Left, Democrats, mainstream, etc. have "dished out" VIRTUALLY NOTHING. They have, in fact, engaged in assisting the White House in limiting the damage with lies about an "intelligence failure", while leaving 95% of the evidence untouched. In fact, 9/11 was an intelligence "success"---as is the current media treatment of 9/11. It is called a "limited hangout". It is a campaign of red herrings and half-truths designed to silence controversies and "move on". 9/11 researchers, as well as 9/11 family members, know it's a lie. And for the record, it was the individuals accused of being "conspiracy theorists" who first raised the issue of intelligence foreknowledge, within hours of the event. Berlet himself engaged in attacks against these individuals. It is only now, mere months from the next presidential (s)election that any form of 9/11 noise has been raised.
Berlet:"Conspiracism is a waste of time."
There is no such thing as conspiracism. This term is simply a euphemism for uncomfortable truths. The fact is, however you interpret the evidence, the charges of complicity or deliberate negligence, raised by Ruppert and others have been increasingly vindicated in the mainstream media and the basic charge, that 'Bush knew' and has something to hide, vociferously attacked by you and your lieutenants. Your main role has been to buy time for the administration and to delay its accountability. If you were really interested in truth, you would spend less time attacking truths you don't like and presenting your own version of the truth. People will make up their own minds.
Joe W.
_________________________________________________________________ Create a Job Alert on MSN Careers and enter for a chance to win $1000! http://msn.careerbuilder.com/promo/kaday.htm?siteid=CBMSN_1K&sc_extcmp=JS_JASweep_MSNHotm2