[lbo-talk] Questions about Osama Bin Laden

[// ravi]

On May 4, 2011, at 2:35 PM, ken hanly wrote:
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>> On May 4, 2011, at 1:36 PM, dperrin at comcast.net wrote:
>> 
>>> By allowing non-official stories, reports, critiques, links, etc. to flow with 
>>> little interruption. What if Wikileaks and the Web had been around during 
>>> Vietnam? Central America? You honestly believe that this wouldn't worry our 
>>> owners and their scribes?
>> 
>> First, Wikileaks came years after the fact. Second, much of what was leaked were 
>> analytical comments by diplomats, not smoking gun secrets like Tonkin could have 
>> been. (And a lot of it not at all stupid analysis.) And third, the admin had no 
>> reason to release any info it didn't want to - it would be years, if ever, 
>> before their account could be contradicted. SEALs don't do tell-all's, do they?
>> 

I think the contribution of the Internet/web (are they interchangeable terms in public parlance now?) might be not so much in facilitating dissemination of hidden truths but rather what this list likes to call “conspiracy theories” i.e., speculation / alternative narratives, some of which might, and often do, stick, causing further headache for the administration. In such circumstances, do Obama and his minions have the testicular fortitude of his predecessors in responding with outright lies? I suspect not. All that hemming and hawing that marks our Great Orator demonstrates what a rank amateur he is at this stuff. His selection could have turned out quite badly for the rulers but for the staunch ignorance of a significant segment of the population regarding his bumbling attempts at earning his keep.

Okay, I confess, that entire paragraph is just a stream of subconsciousness rant on my part.

	—ravi