Why I Am Not A "Truther"

Three years ago I started to delve into the so-called "9-11 truth movement" and the subject of conspiracy theories in general on this blog. I never followed through, partly due to a lack of time, but also because I decided there was little to gain and much to lose by the attempt. Several recent developments have reopened the topic, however, and a series of discussions over the Memorial Day weekend convinced me, with some trepidation, to run the risk of putting a few more observations in writing. With trepidation, because I will almost certainly offend some who I respect by denying the credibility of claims they find convincing, and others by noticing claims they find utterly ridiculous.

In that earlier post, I noted that it often seems as though there are only two camps when it comes to political conspiracy theories. One chooses to accept the "official" government explanation in every instance; the other sees masterful deception, sinister motives, and almost divine omnipotence behind every news-worthy event. Considered calmly and in the light of history, both these extremes are nonsensical. Governments are made up of men; generally speaking, unscrupulous and dishonest men, but men none the less.

To consider the first: the idea that official pronouncements on any topic should carry much weight is silly on its face. The dishonesty of politicians and the incompetence of career bureaucrats are both matters of common knowledge. Particularly in regard to foreign policy, official statements are usually meaningless and frequently intended to deceive. Diplomacy has been defined, with good reason, as the art of lying for one's government. The entire history of international relations, from ancient Israel to the present, is a history of deception on a grand scale. In my view, far from lending extra weight to any version of events, the fact that a story is the official line goes in the scales against it.

The other extreme, however, is equally silly. It is beyond reason to assume that every major event is part of a vast human plan. Human plans don't generally work out as they are supposed to, and the bigger and more complex they are, the less likely they are to succeed. Moreover, there is a vast difference between recognizing dishonesty in the official story line and uncovering the real truth of the matter. Decades or even centuries later, with the benefit of hindsight, it often remains impossible to know with certainty the truth about many major events. I am continually frustrated when "truthers" present the most mind-boggling explanations for the events of 9-11, and when asked to state the evidence, immediately begin to cite problems or inconsistencies in the 9-11 Commission report, evidence of official cover-ups, or examples of how the powers that be have benefited from those events as "evidence" for their wild hypothesis. Often they seem sincerely unable to comprehend why such "evidence" does nothing to prove their own explanation.

The fact is that while there are many holes in the official account of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, most of the various alternatives floating around under the umbrella of the "truth movement" have no credible evidence at all to support them. They seem generally to be developed without any substantive investigation of the actual facts while suspiciously well adapted to make exciting documentary material. Most treat the airplanes as a distraction and claim that the twin towers were brought down by internally placed explosives. Some claim that no airliners were involved at all. Either way, these "alternatives" assume intricate conspiracies of incredible magnitude, requiring the knowledge and complicity of hundreds or thousands of eye-witnesses, emergency responders, construction workers, police and military personnel, airline employees, news media, demolition and recovery workers, stock brokers, high-ranking government officials, petty bureaucrats, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Such conspiracies are the stuff of science fiction, not reality.

I would venture the opinion that the real 9-11 conspiracy is much less exciting. I suspect that it involves an obscenely long wish list of expanded powers sitting in a file cabinet at the Justice Department, under the absurdly patronizing title of The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. I suspect that it stayed in that file cabinet because, while both Republican and Democrat administrations would have dearly loved such an expansion of executive power, both also knew that, in ordinary times, bringing it forward would inspire jealousy in the evil hearts of opposition legislators. So there it languished, waiting for an appropriate time of crisis and the brief moment of bipartisanship that a good crisis always brings. As I noted in the earlier post, such a crisis was bound to occur sooner or later, given the volatile combination of military occupations, tyrannical regimes propped up with American foreign aid, and the constant, petty, manipulative meddling that former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer calls "imperial hubris" - again on the part of both Republican and Democrat administrations.

No doubt Sept. 11, 2001 will go down in history as a Reichstag moment, and rightly so. But to conclude from this that it must have been an "inside job" is unwarranted and unnecessary. The Thompson killings in 1846, the sinking of the Lusitania, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were all similarly anticipated, provoked, and used to manipulate the American public into support for otherwise unpopular wars. The official story behind each of these events is full of holes. None of them, however, was an "inside job." In each case, the enemy was baited into an act of war that justified a military response, and the problems with the official account stems from the difficulty of leaving the bait out of the story.

(For those who take issue with the idea that the U.S. provoked the 9-11 attacks, I again quote the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer: "Bin Laden has been precise in telling Americans the reason he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.")

While the standard template for discussing the 9-11 attacks (a benevolent and peaceful America blindsided by a "sucker punch ... from somewhere in the back") is somewhere between a bad joke and a pack of lies, there is overwhelming evidence available regarding the actual events themselves. Even the collapse of WTC 7 is easily explained without resorting to alternative theories, if one takes the time to examine the structural issues and the eyewitness testimony relating to it.

What bothers me about all of this is not that conspiracy theorists don't trust their government, but that they don't invest the time and effort to scrutinize each others' claims. Most conspiracy theories have a grain of truth somewhere, buried in mountains of conjecture and fiction. Rumors of secret experiments with cloud seeding and weather manipulation magically grow into fantastic stories of "chemtrails" and population reduction efforts. Radio telescopes and ionospheric research become mind-control projects that can also cause massive earthquakes. Secret and exclusive clubs where powerful elites and their mistresses drink, party and discuss how to dig deeper into our pockets morphe into pagan temples where birds, rodents and worse are sacrificed to Satan himself. These claims serve only one purpose: to discredit those who buy into them. Unfortunately, many conspiracy afficionados seem to think it is everyone else's responsibility to disprove their ideas, and are content to dismiss any skeptic with the question, "Have you researched it yourself?"

In the mean time, policies and actions that truly threaten everything we hold dear are pushed forward right under our noses. While President Obama's birthplace was the subject of useless but frantic scrutiny, litigation, and alternative media attention, his political and economic policies have done incalculable damage to our nation and our freedoms. Just as the 9-11 "truth" movement was unfairly but effectively used to discredit Ron Paul in 2008, so the "birther" issue has more recently been used to discredit Tea Party activists, even those who paid no attention to it. The 2012 election will be either a tremendous opportunity or another blow to individual liberty. We would all do well to select carefully the issues to which we will devote our time and efforts.

This Was A Battle?

This recently leaked video provides the context for an excellent piece of advice from one of America's finest: Don't bring your kids to a battle. It also explains just what qualifies for "a battle" to video-game addicts turned loose on the real world, with formidable weapons and technology and the arrogance of the world's only superpower behind them. Don't let kids watch the video, either.

I don't for a minute believe that the actions of this crew are representative of most American soldiers. Nor do I believe, on the other hand, that this was a unique, isolated incident. Here are two examples from my own personal experience:

A friend of mine currently serving as an infantryman in Iraq told me personally that one of his superiors, during a routine patrol in southern Baghdad, fired a missile at random into a civilian dwelling to demonstrate the weapon to a new member of the unit, then justified his actions to his furious fellow-soldiers by reminding them that the US would compensate the homeowner (assuming he survived to file a claim) for the damage.

A former Blackwater medic who was teaching a tactical EMS class I took last year told us: "Blackwater isn't running around over there killing innocent Iraqis, mainly because there are no innocent Iraqis." I know, this wasn't an American soldier, but the attitude is common to many in uniform as well as out.

What I do believe is that some American soldiers are simply violent individuals who enjoy the opportunity to kill and destroy (case #1 above); that some are decent Americans who lose their moral compass in the violence and confusion of alternately fighting and supporting various elements of an insurgency created by their own leaders (case #2 above); and that the large majority are just too cowardly to expose the actions of the first two groups.

By the way, my apologies to the anonymous posters who occasionally post relevant comments here: I've been so inundated with spam comments that I've had to limit comments to registered users.

Everything But Integrity

I’ve just finished reading “Babylon By Bus” by Ray Lemoine and Jeff Neumann. I’d do a book report on it for you all but it made me too angry. Let’s just say that it is downright shameful that a couple of Valium-popping Red Sox junkies can see through the neo-con smokescreen almost without trying, while most Christians willfully choose to remain blissfully ignorant.

I also just learned that Colombian FARC rebels have held three American citizens hostage for four years. Four years! Forgive me for being shocked – I thought we were in a war on terror? Apparently terrorists with oil take priority over terrorists with hostages.

Then again, the ongoing imprisonment of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean for defending themselves against a Mexican drug dealer could indicate that our leaders have a slightly different agenda on the table than what most Americans would like to believe. I’d go so far as to suggest that as an explanation … but I proposed a conspiracy theory last time. Don’t want to overdo it.

Congressional hearings are the new thing on Capitol Hill. The FBI lied. (Several times, I believe.) Cheyney used Valerie Plame to avenge his wounded pride on Joseph Wilson. The administration fired federal prosecutors for political reasons, and to top it all off they aren’t being “fiscally responsible.” Imagine!

Certainly none of this comes as a surprise to us, but the “new” rotation of good old boys is seeking explanations for these “unacceptable actions.” An observer who is not fluent in political sign language might be tempted to think that they were serious about reigning in the massive trend toward consolidation of power in the executive branch. But alas, a brief scan of the post-Reagan political landscape indicates that President Hillary would be inclined rather to continue the trend than to be outdone by her predecessor. Not to mention that the commencement of hostilities in the 2008 campaign provides the obvious explanation for the donkey’s recently acquired interest in “Congressional oversight.” Every skeleton dragged out of the neo-con closet decreases the need to rely on electronic voting when Hillary makes her final run in November ’08.

Even though Al Gore’s own personal “inconvenient truth” has been coming to light, he still manages to draw a crowd to listen to his hypocritical propaganda. I can’t think of another politician who has made a fool of himself so many times and still has the following that man has. It reflects poorly on our national IQ.

HR 1022 is the new and improved Assault Weapons ban. I’ll be posting specifics when I get them organized. It’s bad.

Stand by!

State Of The Union

Since I have far too many issues on my mind than I could possibly devote individual posts to, I thought perhaps a State of the Union post would serve the purpose. I will no doubt be accused of taking a cynical approach; be that as it may, here are a few thoughts, in no particular order, on the currently prevailing political, social, economic and mental conditions in this great nation of ours.

Apparently the weather-related Jet Blue meltdown struck a nerve with our kind-hearted lawmakers. National Public Radio interviewed one passenger who, after waiving his Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in exchange for a ride in the sky, expressed a firm conviction that it was “unconstitutional” for airlines to keep passengers on grounded planes. Capitol Hill responded to his and others’ plea for redress of grievances with a Passenger’s Bill of Rights. But don’t expect too much: Barbara Boxer has no intention of restricting the use of x-ray machines or legalizing the currently prohibited possession of shampoo or scissors. She’s concerned primarily with the toilets flushing properly and related issues.

The neo-conservative democracy-spreading crew is facing non-binding criticism by members of Congress who reject the thought of actually making a decision, but are confronted with the terrifying prospect of having to explain their refusal to accept responsibility for declaring war in 2003. Their “suggestions” include limiting the mission in Iraq to hunting Al Qaeda and securing the borders. Only there is a slight problem: Al Qaeda prefers to hang out with our good friends in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan when they’re off duty. Congressman Ron Paul says it well here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst022607.htm

Speaking of borders, we’ve made significant progress toward opening our own. New protections for the civil rights of illegal immigrants include the prospect of jail time for U.S. Border Patrol agents who resort to deadly force when their lives are threatened. And for those who wish to take the generous offers of Lady Liberty to the next level, Morris Dees and the SPLC stand ready to assist them with any lawsuits they might be contemplating against law enforcement or incensed citizens. Five million bucks anyone? Sure, it’s a little risky, but it could be worse. Don’t worry about the fence; it was just a paper treat for the discontented party faithful. Our first Latino President has already cut the funding. And if you run into the National Guard, just flash the guns. They’re not allowed to return fire. Be careful, though; don’t push it so far that they issue a statement condemning your behavior.

Now that we’ve taken on border patrol responsibilities for the Middle East, the size of our military is again proving inadequate. Capitol Hill isn’t ready to vote itself out of office by reinstituting the draft, but our Dear Leader has called for the first step towards implementing Charlie Rangel’s proposal through the establishment of a Civilian Reserve Corps. Of course, it would be strictly voluntary, because folks need to get used to the idea before they are “given the opportunity to serve” at gunpoint. See the future here: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementDraft01112007.html

Of course, anyone who pays attention knows that a larger military is essential in this world of proliferating weapons and sophisticated terrorism. If only they would pay even closer attention and recognize that such weapons and technology aren’t exactly free, and that much of the funds needed to obtain them are provided by … take a guess, anyone? The Congressman from Texas is again on target when he charges American foreign aid with creating multiple threats to our national security. But who listens to him?

On the energy front, our leaders have successfully deflected the well-deserved criticism of our policy of foreign dependence by proposing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thereby appearing inclined to move forward while giving the green lobby a golden opportunity to tear their hair and file their lawsuits. Simply tapping into the huge deposits under the Alaskan North Slope would presumably have been too easy.

But the greatest environmental issue facing the world today is Global Warming. I know, I’ve always been skeptical of this one, but I’m convinced. Not by the fact that certain parts of the world are recording the warmest temperatures in a century. That would indicate to me that similar conditions prevailed - oh, say - a century ago? Nor am I convinced by the alleged scientific consensus: half a century ago they were certain that we were entering another Ice Age, and they also agree that the incredible order and intricate design we see in every aspect of creation is the result of a cosmic burp four billion years ago. Seriously, an evolutionist of all people ought not to be concerned with a little warming. They want us to believe that this universe, this earth, the innumerable forms of life on this earth, and ultimately we ourselves, all managed to arrive relatively unscathed at approximately the 4,000,000,000th anniversary of our original emergence from nothingness, against odds which are incomprehensible to the greatest mathematicians who ever lived; and then they expect us to further believe that our continued existence is threatened by a five degree increase in average world temperature on the Fahrenheit scale?

So how have I become convinced that Global Warming is the defining environmental crisis of our time? Simply because I recognize the power of money to define crises. The UN desperately needs another way to raise money to fund its increasingly corrupt existence, and a carbon tax seems to be just the thing. A carbon tax, however, can only be proposed with a show of credibility if Global Warming is indeed a problem: hence, it must be a problem. Right?

Education is one of the great success stories of our time. Two generations have now swallowed the previously mentioned fairy tale and pronounced it good. Now that they know God doesn’t exist, their children can be trained to place their blind faith in a more tangible benefactor. While political parties vie with one another to ensure that No Child is Left Behind, their young subjects receive mandatory STD vaccinations before joining their peers to learn about the different kinds of families, why pregnancy is a disease, and all the problems that Big Brother can solve if we only give him the opportunity (read: funding).

We remain convinced that we can only combat the problems of addiction, violence and crime through education, more specifically by increased spending for education. The inverse relationship between national funding of education and national crime rates hasn’t yet occurred to us as having significance. If we could only give these kids free health insurance too, there’s no telling where their lives might lead, though a good guess would be in the direction of whatever else might be had for as little effort.

When political supporters of the ongoing wholesale slaughter of unborn children turn in for the evening, the satisfaction of a few kind deeds could presumably go a long way towards a good night’s sleep. That may explain why the New Delhi Sands Fly, Pacific salmon and spotted owls have so many supporters in the District. But the latest philanthropic effort of Pennsylvania lawmakers would ban live pigeon shooting. In a few years the last great question of the Second Amendment will have been solved: it’s not about duck hunting. Our founders would never have condoned such cruelty to innocent animals.

And, of course, the carefully developed policy of “divide and conquer” continues to prove effective against concerted grassroots efforts to fight corruption, take back individual freedoms and preserve American sovereignty. The constant focus on multi-culturalism keeps Americans myopically obsessed with the interests of our “groups,” while the rugged, “I can” individualism of previous generations is replaced with a whining, “I want” mentality. Our sense of community is lost as we cram our parents into nursing homes, our children into after-school programs, our infants into day-care and ourselves into the rat-race. Under the pretext of “improving quality of life” we supported zoning ordinances that segregate and compartmentalize our neighborhoods and our lives. Now that we miss the small-town feel our parents enjoyed, we want the same land-use planners who destroyed our neighborhoods to plan them into existence again.

On the bright side, our esteemed fellow citizens in New York City have begun an effort to recover their lost sense of community. They just held a citywide pillow-fight in Union Square. No kidding.

It’s good to see other folks finally doing something.

And I almost forgot: the final word on the state of the Union is that it is about to grow. By about 500,000,000 people. The name is changing too: we’ll call it the North American Union. Tim Findley has a must-read article on it here: http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/07-sp-north-american-union.pdf

Conspiracy theory, you say? Talk to me in five years.

Echoooooooooooooes

Politics by Murder

It seems the Republicrats in Washington D.C. have proven capable of outdoing themselves. They are unquestionably the epitome of dishonesty in a proverbiably dishonest capitol city. Rather than allow a vote on Rep. Murtha's proposal for a somewhat controlled withdrawal from Iraq, they chose to play the dirtiest of political games, defame an honorable and patriotic veteran, and offer an entirely unacceptable solution so that they could claim "victory." Their idea of victory in this instance may perhaps shed some light on their hopes for a victory in Iraq.

It is time to ask the real questions, people. Is withdrawal from Iraq necessarily "cutting and running?" What exactly is "staying the course" supposed to imply?

Vice President Cheney says, "The terrorists . . . have contempt for our values, they doubt our strength and they believe that America will lose its nerve and let down our guard. But this nation's made a decision: We will not retreat in the face of brutality, and we will never live at the mercy of tyrants or terrorists."

Did you hear that? The terrorists have contempt for our values? Imagine that! Perhaps if we had some values left they would respect them a little more. Not only that, but ... horror of horrors ... they doubt our strength! Why? Because our soldiers aren't allowed to win, that's why. Even worse, they believe we will lose our nerve and let down our guard! Impossible! Look at our borders, please? We have no guard left to let down. We are a nation of ostriches with our heads in the sand. But we will not retreat, no siree! We will never live at the mercy of tyrants. That is for the folks at Guatanamo, not us. We couldn't afford to have a tyrant over us, the economy might go south! (Or east ... waay east ... all-the-way-to-China east!)

Can we cut the politics for a moment? Mr. Veep, just what do you call the current situation in Iraq? Can anyone say Viet Nam? If we are really committed to defeating the threat of Islamic terrorism, for God's sake do it! Let's have a declaration of war on a tangible threat, let's commit our entire national resources to the elimination of that threat, let's get the job done and move on!

There is no way to occupy or even stabilize a nation the size of Iraq with the forces we have committed. We are not on unfamiliar ground here, people. We've been through this more times in the last 50 years than I care to think about. We've seen what happens when our military is throttled by international red tape, when our soldiers are sent into a foreign country without the resources or the permission to win, when their lives are wasted for the reprehensible purpose of "imposing the will of the international community" on some third world country. Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, Somalia, does anyone see a pattern? We have no business sending Americans to die for the United Nations and their twisted plans for the world.

The men who landed in the Ia Drang valley in Viet Nam on Nov. 14, 1965 were fighting for the freedom of the South Vietnamese people. Or so they thought. Only in hindsight, thousands of dead buddies later, would it become apparent that no sacrifice on their part would be sufficient, that they were never supposed to win, that they were there solely to die on the altar of the "brave new world" that was to emerge from their ashes. Our soldiers are being sacrificed just as cruelly today. I believe we have no business in Iraq. They have never posed a legitimate threat to this country, and their personal problems have only been exacerbated by our invasion and continued presence. Be that as it may, the continued refusal of our leaders to end the conflict, either by committing a sufficient force to do so on our terms, or by acknowledging our error and withdrawing, leaves only one conclusion: they have something to gain by the continued bloodshed of our boys.

To the leaders of our nation and representatives of the American people: the course we are on is clear. You say a withdrawal would destabilize the region. Hello? The region is currently destabilized. You say the threat of terrorism is one we must stop. Hello again? It is unquestionably thriving as a direct result of the Shiite Islamic State your laughable imposition of "democracy" has instituted. You say we must not retreat. That leaves us two choices. We can "stay the course" or we can win. The course we are on does not involve any perceptible success. To vow your intention to stay that course is proof of your utter disregard for the lives of the men you so lightly jeapordize.

If the American people do not begin seriously asking themselves what the international power brokers have to gain by a state of perpetual war, they will find themselves in a totalitarian society without ever knowing how they got there. Time is running out.

Morally Adrift

Daniel Boone was born on this day in 1734. Known for his patriotism, courage and woodsmanship, he was an icon of the early frontier. When asked how many times he had been lost in the vast forested expanses of Kentucky and West Virginia, he declared that he never was lost, but was once bewildered for a few days. Too bad our current leaders can't say as much when it comes to keeping their moral sense of direction.

The Washington Post reported today on the CIA's secret prison system for "terror suspects" around the world. While they declined to discuss the specific countries that have been involved in detention and interrogation of CIA detainees, those who care more about truth and justice than the public face of the CIA have long since identified several of them, most notably the former Soviet "republic" of Uzbekistan. According to The New American, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan was recalled not long ago for openly protesting the transfer of terror suspects from CIA custody to the Uzbek Secret Police. He claimed that Air America planes arrived in Tashkent on almost a daily basis with "cases" for the former KGB gentlemen to speak with. For those who don't know, these good people have long been considered by the intelligence community to be the ultimate in brutality, cruelty, and ingenuity when it comes to interrogation, torture and murder techniques.

According to the WP, Vice President Cheyney and CIA Director Porter Goss requested last month that the agency be exempted from legislation being considered that would bar "cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners in US custody."

Any guesses why that would be a problem for the good folks at "The Company?"