Seems like an excellent reason to ignore the popular mechanic turned conspiracy sage, yes?
> cabal conspiracy theory) in which case he then becomes part of the
> mysterious insider conspiracy and by implication anyone else who
> happens to post his very sound argument as well, which provides a
> sound warning why much of the left has gone off on a wild goose chase
> on this issue.
Ah but my good fellow, you are yet to convince us that "much of the left" has indeed gone chasing wild geese! Without such demonstration, forwarding arbitrary if sound arguments is a bit mischievous, yes?
> That of course has been the subject of numerous recent exposes by
> many observers on the left ranging from Alexander Cockburn, Doug
> Henwood, Chip Berlet, Amy Goodman, and the list goes on and on
> lamenting how the left in general has gone off the deep end on this
> issue.
This is wonderful news!!! These are impeccable luminaries and have, no doubt, in mid-lament, provided the necessary data on the leftist hordes in pursuit of the geese... perhaps some examples, percentages... even a photograph or two?
> 36% of Americans also believe this hooey and the...
Yes, yes, so we are told... but here we must pause... for I am afraid I am a slow thinker, if at all. So, let us, if you will permit it, take this in baby steps. A natural starting point may be to wonder: what is the source of this data? Perhaps a Scripps-Howard/OhioU poll which found:
=> Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or => "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the => attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action => to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in => the Middle East."
Now this seems to tell us something about the style of reasoning of the "debunkers"... why would they include in the same category such significantly distinct positions as "participated in the attacks" and "took no action to stop them"? It seems to me that Richard Clarke had a position very close to the latter (he mentions that (a) the Bush administration ignored his warnings about al Qaeda, and (b) they wanted from day one to go to war in Iraq). When you think at such a feeble rate, you also tend to notice other stuff -- such as the interpretations of the "because" as used to lead to the second part of the question.
What are we to make of "this hooey" at this stage of our exploration? How are we to continue to put to good use this terse and productive term?
> Internet is alive with so-called "9/'11 Truth" advocates--one of whom
> is running for the 14th Congressional Distr! ict of California on
> the Green Party ticket.
The Internet you say! Alive with all sorts of so-called Truth advocates! A disease to be stamped out! Nobody could agree more with you. Why, just the other day, Mrs. Seseke wrote to me swearing me into confidence, confessing to [what turned out to be so-called] truths about her departed husband's financial adventures. Suffice to say that this so-called truth, which involved millions of dollars, and I mean Canadian dollars, not Bush money, turned out to be, would you believe it, a conspiracy on the part of Mrs. Seseke to dupe me into parting with some vital personal information. In fact, old chap, I have a gnawing suspicion that the correspondence was not from Mrs. Seseke at all, but a clever forgery! Be that as it may, you will be glad to know that I have acquired a bit of software with the puzzling name of Thunderbird, which successfully identifies such dastardly efforts and dispenses with them as you might a can of meat. So, despair not! there is reason for hope!
The Green Party... ah, the sweet, dear, lovely Green Party. Are they still being funded by Republicans or is it back to selling bumper stickers? A fun crowd, those Greens.
> So by all means go entertain yourself with this question of what
> Miegs stands for!!!!! Like 9/11 conspiracy theories, in my view, it
> has not much to do with serious social change.
And we have convergence!
--ravi