The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies:

June 2, 2002 10:44 PM

The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies: Ready to do some 9/11 conspiracy debunking? Read this and lets get some old time MeFi discussion going. It's all there, from the (s)election of Bush as president to the "pre-planning" of the American Patriot Act. As Weiner describes the culprits as:

. . .the HardRight began serious planning for a 2000 electoral victory -- and then implementation of a HardRight agenda, and the destruction of a liberal opposition -- a year or two after Clinton's 1996 victory. (The impeachment of Clinton was a key ingredient to sully Democrat opposition.) The GOP HardRight leaders decided early to select George W. Bush, a none-too-bright and easily malleable young man with the right name and pedigree. They ran into a speed-bump when John McCain began to take off in the public imagination, and so with dirty tricks they wrecked his campaign in the South and elsewhere, and continued on their merry course.
posted by crasspastor (21 comments total)

"The explanation preferred by the government is to admit, eight months late, to absolute and horrendous incompetence, up and down the line (although Bush&Co., surprise!, prefer to focus the blame lower down, letting the FBI be the fall guy)."

As much as I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, I still think this is the best explanation. I admit that I was intrigued by this:

"An FBI agent has filed official complaints over the bureau's interfering with antiterrorism investigations; his lawyers include David Schippers, who worked for the GOP side in the Clinton impeachment effort; Schippers says the agent knew in May 2001 that "an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent."

Here is an interview with Schippers.
posted by homunculus at 11:58 PM on June 2, 2002

Yet another ninny repeating the $43 million to the Taliban story -- a fabrication of Robert Scheer. I've lost all respect for places like Common Dreams because of this sort of thing. They've probably published stories including it 50 times since last year. Fact-check it? Why, it's got to be true -- it was on Indymedia!

If the US government giving money to NGOs to distribute food in refugee camps is "aid to the Taliban", then the biggest underwriter of their regime is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
posted by dhartung at 1:58 AM on June 3, 2002

The War On Terrorism For Dummies, by the same guy, this time with 'PhD' after his name. No conspiracy-mongering, though. Fairly straighforward.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:13 AM on June 3, 2002

dhartung, I know you to be a fact checker yourself. Why must you be so fact-checking shy in a post you yourself could easily debunk with loads of links stating otherwise? Why must you attack a strawman in and of the Indymedia?

Calling people ninnies doesn't address an issue that all of us should be concerned about. All it serves to do is propagate the myth that anyone with questions is a quack, and therefore should be silenced forthwith. Who wants to read a ninny anyhow?

What if who you call a ninny called you one too? Would that mean you were a ninny? You'd beg to differ I'd imagine.
posted by crasspastor at 2:15 AM on June 3, 2002

Stop being a ninny, crasspator.
posted by dogmatic at 2:20 AM on June 3, 2002

This pinhead makes Chomsky seem almost - well, *normal*.
posted by davidmsc at 3:23 AM on June 3, 2002

Well, even if I have trouble believing his theories, I think we all can agree on this one closing passage ... "The best way to [derail the HardRight], aside from ratcheting up the Enron and Anthrax and 9/11 investigations (and it may turn out that those scandals are deeply intertwined), is to defeat GOP candidates in the upcoming November elections."
posted by crunchland at 3:37 AM on June 3, 2002

An interview with himself? I am old fashioned enough to want to wait for a full investigation before coming up with this sort of thing. After all, a Ph.D. who is a reporter who then writes a few articles for left-leaning places and seems incapable of holding a teaching job but ends up publishing on the web is perhaps a source that should be suspect, esp. if ublishing in Common Dreams, a place not always very reliable in my reading of them. This is not to say he is dead wrong but rather very suspect in making such sweeping claims.
posted by Postroad at 3:48 AM on June 3, 2002

I'm seeing a lot of name calling and attacking the messenger but very little in the way of refuting the statements of the article. Could it be because the article has some merit and some statements that cannot be refuted? Just asking. Can we see something more substantial than straw men and messenger shooting?
posted by nofundy at 5:19 AM on June 3, 2002

nofundy and crasspastor: whackos can spin conspiracy theories far faster than they can be refuted, and every time you turn around, there's a new conspiracy theorist. Life is too short to be spent refuting everyone who says the earth is flat. Often, calling them a 'ninny' is a perfectly appropriate response.

dhartung's point is that if this article is still trying to pass off the lie that the US gave $43 million to the Taliban, months and months after it was refuted, it speaks so poorly of the author's judgement that he can be dismissed. I mean, once David Icke says that the human race is being manipulated by giant, shape-shifting lizards, do you really care about anything else he has to say?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 5:59 AM on June 3, 2002

On the related topic of accurate reporting in regards to the War on Terrorism, I found this of interest.
posted by y2karl at 8:30 AM on June 3, 2002

And from today's New York Times:

C.I.A. Was Tracking Hijacker Months Earlier Than It Had Said
posted by y2karl at 8:38 AM on June 3, 2002

What do you know. Relevant links. Thanks, y2karl. You've got a pleasant habit of distracting people from their flame fests with useful content.
posted by Fenriss at 9:07 AM on June 3, 2002

Slithy_Tove,
I disagree that name calling is an appropriate response and shooting at straw men is OK in a reasoned discusion. I do agree that lies can be spun faster than anyone can shoot them all down. It's still going on in regards to President Clinton. The master of lies, half-truths and throwing the spin to the mind numbed masses is still making money with his craft on AM talk radio.
BTW, where is the "It's all Clintons' fault" slur in this thread? I haven't seen it yet! C'mon guys, are you slipping?
posted by nofundy at 9:17 AM on June 3, 2002

nofundy, you should really speak to a therapist about your obsession with Rush.
posted by darukaru at 9:37 AM on June 3, 2002

If the current administration's policies are what passes for a hard right agenda, speaking for the hard right, I am most sincerely disappointed...
posted by dissent at 9:40 AM on June 3, 2002

nofundy:

I certainly hope we don't get down to the "It's Clinton's fault" level.

While I am no fan of WJC, blaming him won't change the problem or bring back the thousands that were killed.

Fix the problems, not the blame.
posted by hadashi at 10:04 AM on June 3, 2002

Say, when did this squeezing the words "Hard" and "Right" together into HardRight, start? If it's a strategy to demonize a particular political group, it may backfire. HardRight sounds cool, like some kind of macho leather band, or something.
posted by Faze at 11:02 AM on June 3, 2002

Here is the Newsweek article that broke the story of how the CIA watched but kept silent as two of the hijakers entered the country after attending a Qaeda summit in Malaysia. All the intelligence failures we've heard of so far have struck me as cases of incompetence or willful ignorance, but this one really does sound malicious.
posted by homunculus at 11:46 AM on June 3, 2002

Congratulations to Newsweek for breaking a story that was reported on Frontline in January. Jan-u fucking-ary. Their website is an excellent resource and summarizes the many missed opportunities. Is this what passes for investigative reporting these days?
posted by euphorb at 12:59 PM on June 3, 2002

Disappointing thread. I, for one, found nothing said by the author in either article particularly outrageous or fanciful, but neither do I suspect that what he says closely mirrors reality.

One can only hope that his plea for real opposition to the dismantling of what good is left in America is heeded.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:55 PM on June 3, 2002