>One of the central points argued by Griffin and others is that the
>9-11 attacks provided a pretext for the war on Afghanistan, which
>had among other things to do with gaining strategic control over
>that region (Afghanistan being positioned between Central Asia and
>the oil rich former Soviet Republics). Falk wrote the foreward to
>Griffin's book *after* his article in the Nation in which he
>supported the intervention in Afghanistan. While Falk does not
>address his earlier position on Afghanistan, by writing the
>foreward, he is either contradicting himself (which I doubt) or
>changing his position. So, Griffin's book, whether you view it as
>conspiracy theory or not, *has* moved Falk in a more progressive
>direction. So you obviously have no point other than to attack
>'conspiracism' which as far as I can tell, is a phenomenon which
>occurs chiefly in the mind of Chip Berlet and his dittoheads.
So lemme see if I've got the politics of this straight. Bush & Co. destroyed the WTC and a chunk of the Pentagon - killing a lot of its kind of people - to take "control" of a country it still can't control, to build a fantastic pipeline across Afghanistan? Then it invaded Iraq, alienating Russia and the Arab world, to reinforce its control of oil, which it still doesn't control, and isn't likely to? Doesn't that seem like a crazily inefficient way of going about things?
Doug