And in the Left Corner...

[NoZed Avenger]

Sorry bolobffin, I find your speculations without merit. Much of the CT adherents are driven by Bush Derangement Syndrome, in which otherwise rational people are willing to embrace crackpot ideas just so long as they can pin the evil tag on Bush.

I wouldn't dismiss the entire position so quickly. The Vince Foster episode, for example, was flacked by one or two right wing pundits, including Limbaugh (IIRC). That being said, there is a difference of scale there -- you rightly point out that the Oklahoma City bombing did not cause such speculation.

But speculation about what the right wing or conservatives or Republicans or pundits *might* have said with Gore as President seems irrelevant to me.

*If* someone prominent on the right wing had given an endorsement of a 9/11 conspiracy book in such a case, then I would expect the vast majority of posters on the forum -- right or left -- to decry it. Likewise, this author and Rosie should also be called on their position -- and they largely have been by the posters on the forum (again, whether left or right).

But, say for the sake of argument that Fox News, in some alternate universe, would have run conspiracy theories 24/7. Assume every Republican with access to a TV camera would also suddenly call for Gore's impeachment for complicity in 9/11.

SO WHAT?

Even if true, how does that possibly affect the point that Zinn's position and aura of respect for his academic work could cause damage by allowing a wider audience to actually take the 9/11 movement seriously for more than two seconds? Does it somehow justify Zinn's statements? What am I missing?

 

[rwguinn]

<discourse on the "What Iffiness" of previous posts snipped>
SO WHAT?

Even if true, how does that possibly affect the point that Zinn's position and aura of respect for his academic work could cause damage by allowing a wider audience to actually take the 9/11 movement seriously for more than two seconds? Does it somehow justify Zinn's statements? What am I missing?

You have missed nothing. IT matters not which side of the pool one is on--the ijits have no grounding in scientific reasoning, and no basis for their stand other than what they want to believe, or have been spoon-fed by their handlers inorder to reach a wider audience.They thus become more visible, have higher name-recognition, and thus a bigger draw at the box-office, with the resulting higher pay, bigger audience, higher name...the old "self-eating watermelon" situation
Anyone, here or elsewhere, who is protecting their "position" or that of the Liberal/conservative/left/right wings by projecting "what if" or "If Gore/If Fox news" or whatever is pure speculation based on one's own political bias and has no basis in reality, which tends to overwhelm wishful thinking.

 

[WildCat]

Do you recall Waco and Ruby Ridge? Do you recall the phrase "Wag The Dog"?

Absolutely. But nobody ever claimed that Randy weaver and David Koresh were created by the Clintons to increase the power of the FBI to take away our freedoms, or that the Bosnian War was a creation of Clinton for some nefarious purpose. The FBI was (rightly IMHO) criticized for being too heavy-handed at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and I agreed w/ the Bosnian war. The acusatons that it was a ruse to distract from the Whitewater investigation was hardly the same as claiming that the Bosnian massacres were a hoax orchestrated by Clinton.

Do you recall an investigation into a failed land deal in Arkansas?

Minor stuff, which the Clintons blew all out of proportion by obstructing the investigation at every possible chance.

Do you recall right-wing pundits or talking heads saying Clinton passed on Osama?

Didn't he?

There was also the Sudanese offer to hand him over, though I agree that at that time there wasn't any evidence to try him here, he hadn't yet made his "declaration of war" on the US and the bombings that followed.

Do you recall "earth tones" and "Love Canal" and "Love Story"?

No idea what you're talking about here.

Do you think that these people, if they'd learned of a 6 Aug 2001 PDB with President Gore's name attached, do you think that these people would have given Gore the benefit of the doubt?

Nor did mainstream Dems give Bush the benefit of the doubt. It's a long way from there to LIHOP or MIHOP though.

In many cases, BDS is misdiagnosed. It is Government Derangement Syndrome that many have, and clearly the 9/11 CT woo is generated by people who would curse a Democrat as soon as a Republican in office. And that is the final failure of any attempt to make this a issue about left wing or right wing. This woo comes from a different part of the bird.

Perhaps, but I really don't recall anything from the right approaching what we see against Bush from the left. When you see mainstream Dems walking hand in hand w/ radical Marxists something has gone askew IMHO. You didn't see Republican rallies welcoming fascists or nationalists into the fold during the Clinton years, did you?

 

[Peephole]

Clinton and Gore were in power for the OKC bombing, the '93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and the African embassy bombings. I don't recall any right-wing pundits or talking heads claiming that those attacks were orchestrated by the Clinton Admin. In fact, the CT's are claiming that these were somehow related to Bush/Cheney and their 9/11 CT. Hell, they've even found what they claim to be a picture of Bush 41 outside the Texas School Book Depository to try to tie Bush to the JFK assasination.

Sorry bolobffin, I find your speculations without merit. Much of the CT adherents are driven by Bush Derangement Syndrome, in which otherwise rational people are willing to embrace crackpot ideas just so long as they can pin the evil tag on Bush.

You're right, right-wing pundits would never ever dare accuse Democratic officials of murder.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509210002

 

[rwguinn]

You're right, right-wing pundits would never ever dare accuse Democratic officials of murder.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509210002

Will you guys look at what you're doing (besides moving goalposts, setting up straw men, and other logical falacies.)
Wildcat--shoulda-coulda-woulda-migha are all speculations, and allthes arguments are just entrenching people in their ideology--your discourse has nothing to do with the situation. Unfortunately, your posts prove the point that any aspersions cast on a liberal are recieved by Democrats and liberals as sour grapes and retaliatory strikes by Republicans, regardless of the correctness of those aspersive missiles (is that a word?--oh, well)
Peephole-you are trying to defending a position that is untenable--Zinn's acceptance and promotion of the various "evil gubmint dunnit" scenarios at the WTC is a threat to anyone with liberal and/or Democratic party leanings..
Now, you can both hunker down behind party lines, or rear up and do what is right. What is right is to kick that woo-woo fertilizer back out into left (or right) field, where it can cause the grass to grow, not pile it up at the plate where it merely stinks, gets cloths dirty, and serves as a distraction.

 

[DavidJames]

Clinton and Gore were in power for the OKC bombing, the '93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and the African embassy bombings. I don't recall any right-wing pundits or talking heads claiming that those attacks were orchestrated by the Clinton Admin.

You won't find left-wing pundits or talking heads (at least not in the MSM) spouting 9/11 nonsense either.

Much of the CT adherents are driven by Bush Derangement Syndrome, in which otherwise rational people are willing to embrace crackpot ideas just so long as they can pin the evil tag on Bush.

My belief is CTists are CTist first and foremost. Political leanings are secondary. That's why you find so many believe in other CT's.

There were plenty of CT's around Clinton, Foster, Brown, and murders and drug deals in Arkansas. They existed at the same, below the MSM, levels just like 9/11 CT's. There are two key reasons why these tin hatters have more impact. The first is the sheer magnitude of the event compared to the Clinton versions. The second is the increased impact and visibility of the Internet.

I don't believe things would be much different, CT wise, if Clinton was president.

 

[Peephole]

Will you guys look at what you're doing (besides moving goalposts, setting up straw men, and other logical falacies.)
Wildcat--shoulda-coulda-woulda-migha are all speculations, and allthes arguments are just entrenching people in their ideology--your discourse has nothing to do with the situation. Unfortunately, your posts prove the point that any aspersions cast on a liberal are recieved by Democrats and liberals as sour grapes and retaliatory strikes by Republicans, regardless of the correctness of those aspersive missiles (is that a word?--oh, well)
Peephole-you are trying to defending a position that is untenable--Zinn's acceptance and promotion of the various "evil gubmint dunnit" scenarios at the WTC is a threat to anyone with liberal and/or Democratic party leanings..
Now, you can both hunker down behind party lines, or rear up and do what is right. What is right is to kick that woo-woo fertilizer back out into left (or right) field, where it can cause the grass to grow, not pile it up at the plate where it merely stinks, gets cloths dirty, and serves as a distraction.

Hey, I'm just saying that left or right-wing, there's always gonna be guys spreading conspiracy ********.