top
Anti-War
Anti-War
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Debunking anti-conspiracy theorists

by local reporter
KPFA's Kellia Ramares responds to M. Rothschild's (The Progressive) attempts to squelch inquiry. "... Facile assignment of error to generalized "bureaucratic incompetence" makes it easy for the government to make some bad policy changes under the guise of improving "the system".
Dear Matt,

Just a short note to say that I am sorry to see that you are publishing
the same drivel as Norman Solomon re 9-11 about focusing on systems and
not on individual wrongdoers. This makes about as much sense as saying
that the sociologists of a community should study the root causes of
crime, but that the police should not investigate individual criminals.


>Published on Wednesday, May 29, 2002 in The Progressive
>Crude Politics of Scandal
>by Matthew Rothschild

> ... But what we don't need is crazy
conspiracy theorists coming from the left.

Phrases such as "crazy conspiracy theorists" have become the pejorative
that Communist, or pinko used to be.

Do you deny that there are such things as "conspiracies"? Didn't it take
a "conspiracy" to actually carry out the Sept. 11th attacks? If that
conspiracy is possible, why is it impossible that a conspiracy on our
side allowed the attack to be carried out? One thing I have noticed since
September 11th is that conspiracies seem to be something only "the other
side" does. The notion that "the other" engages in some negative conduct
that "we" do not isn't rational thinking, but rather one of the
hallmarks of prejudice.

>Almost every time I've spoken in public since September 11, I've heard
>variations of the following theme:
> Bush not only knew about the attacks, but wanted the United States
>to be attacked so that he could (and here you can take your pick):

> a) Increase his popularity by waging war

This has indeed happened to an astounding degree if you believe most of
the polls. Further more, the Administration has been trying to leverage
that popularity to justify everything from more tax cuts for the wealthy
to "Fast Track" trade authorization as necessary to fight the war on
terrorism.

> b) Justify an increase in Pentagon spending

This has also happened. I needn't spend the time digging up the latest
figures, you know where to get them.

> c) Boost the profits of the Carlyle Group, a private
military investment group that includes Bush's father, among other
heavyweights.

War boosts the profits of defense contractors, doesn't it? The Bush
administration is famous for coming up with plans to benefit its wealthy
corporate donors, isn't it? In the wake of September 11th, the White
House "economic stimulus plans" were designed to help the corporate
execs and not the displaced workers, right? I am not suggesting that
Bush wanted a war JUST to help daddy's balance sheet, but it's a nice
side benefit, isn't it?


>These arch-conspiracists include Representative Cynthia
McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, who, back in April, strongly hinted that
the Administration had prior knowledge of the attack and added, "What is
undeniable is that corporations close to the Administration have
directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the
aftermath of September 11."

You are rather late in arriving at the "Trash McKinney" party, aren't
you? Why bring this up now?
McKinney called for an investigation. Since then more members of
Congress, including Dick Gephardt have done so. You got a problem with
that? Your casting of aspersions on McKinney and use of phrases such as
"arch conspiracists" harkens back to Ari Fleischer's attack on McKinney
in mid-April, in which he said that she "must be running for the Hall of
Fame of the Grassy Knoll Society." What we don't need is leftist pundits
echoing the Administration.


> The claim that Bush knew the U.S. would be attacked and
intentionally let it happen for his own nefarious purposes is well
beyond my significant skeptical powers.

So what? Are you suggesting that something can't be true because YOU
can't believe it? Rather arrogant, isn't it? What's worse, this suggests
a limit on your ability to search for the truth. No sense searching for
the possibility of something you don't believe in, right? This would be
of little moment if you were a bricklayer, but as the publisher of a
major left periodical, these blinders you are wearing short-change your
readers and the American public in general. Your publication should be
helping to get to the bottom of this tragedy, unlimited by your level
of skepticism.


>It assumes a callousness at the loss of innocent American lives that I
wouldn't want to impute to any President.

Again, what YOU want to think about the man in the White House is
irrelevant. Are you going to say that this government has never
deliberately harmed innocents? How many Presidents have thrown away
innocent lives by committing soldiers to wars for our imperialistic
ends, costing the lives, not only of some of the soldiers, but also of
the other human beings, callously called "collateral damage" who had the
misfortune of being in the way, or being the victims of other people's
self-defense or retribution.

Just a couple of other examples:

The Bush Administration has lifted the Clinton Administration's ban on
the EPA using data from pesticide industry studies on humans, in which
paid volunteers swallow small doses of the product. (Nov. 27th, 2001, LA
Times article by Elizabeth Shogren).

On Friday May 24th, William J. Broad of the New York Times reported that
the Pentagon has revealed that Defense Department sprayed live nerve and
biological agents onships and sailors during Cold War-era experiments to
test the Navy's vulnerability to toxic warfare. The report went on to
say that "it was uncertain whether any of the sailors had given their
permission to become human guinea pigs in the experiments."

Consider any time arms of the government have employed voilence against
peace protesters, civil rights activists, striking workers, etc. Have we
had ANY president without someone's blood on his hands? (Don't forget
government policies to exterminate Native Americans in the 19th
Century).


>And it greatly underestimates the likelihood of bureaucratic
incompetence. (A hedge fund against such incompetence would be a sure
profit-maker.)

This issue is so complex that it is possible that bureaucratic
incompetence played a part. Maybe, for example, bureaucratic
incompetence played a part in the fact that military fighters were not
scrambled in time to intercept the hijacked airliners in accordance with
FCC regs that go back three decades. We will not know if that was the
case without a full investigation of the matter. But instead of raising
such questions, people like you are automatically chalking up this
tragedy to bureaucratic incompetence without asking specific questions
such as "why weren't the fighters scrambled in time?."

Read FBI agent Colleen Rowley's memo: the agents in the field in Phoenix
and Minneapolis, even under the old constraints, did their jobs, and
were stonewalled by an unnamed FBI SSA (Supervisory Special Agent) who,
along with his unit chief, and other HQ personnel, "were allowed to stay
in their positions and, what's worse, occupy critical positions in the
FBI's SIOC Command Center post September 11th. (The SSA in question
actually received a promotion some months afterward)."

Now, sane conspiracy realist from the left that I am, I have read
Rowley's memo and I see obstruction of justice that calls for a thorough
investigation of individuals, an investigation that people in your
position should be loudly demanding. Facile assignment of error to
generalized "bureaucratic incompetence" makes it easy for the government
to make some bad policy changes under the guise of improving "the
system". Changes such as allowing the FBI to go on fishing expeditions by
searching public sources without evidence of criminal behavior.
Probable cause is under seige in this country. Clearly Rowley's memo
shows that the FBI chain of command, a system, was problematic. But even
within the system, identifiable human beings had moral choices to make.
The agents in Minneapolis chose to contact the CIA despite the fact that
they were violating the chain of command. The unnamed SSA, and his unit
chief, obstructed justice.


>When lefties go off half-cocked with conspiracy
theories, it does our cause no good.

And just what is "our cause"?



>We instantly lose credibility with our fellow citizens,

Credibility? How much did Norman Solomon pay you to raise his favorite
bugaboo? You just wrote:

"Almost every time I've spoken in public since September 11, I've heard
variations of the following theme:
Bush not only knew about the attacks, but wanted the United States to be
attacked so that he could (and here you can take your pick):"

If in fact you are encountering these ideas "almost every time" how can
you logically claim that "we instantly lose credibility with our fellow
citizens?" Who are these people who state variations of the theme when
you speak in public, men from Mars?

I co-produce a show called Guns & Butter: The Economics of Politics on
KPFA. During the February fundraiser, GNB aired about 46 minutes of a
lecture by Michael C. Ruppert, Publisher and Editor of From the
Wilderness. He's the lead investigative reporter on the Government
foreknowledge issue, and a favorite whipping boy of structural analysts
like yourself. The program was aired during KPFA's February Fundraiser
and logged over $17,000 in pledges in one hour. People called all day
ordering our premium, Ruppert's video called "The Truth and Lies of
9-11," in which he makes a formidable case for foreknowledge. A case
made even more formidble by the recent revelations. Obviously our
listeners didn't find the possibility of foreknowledge incredible.

I have done more work on the air on this issue on Wendell Harper's
"What's the Verdict?" program and the calls and emails from the
listeners are all positive. The Atlanta Journal Constitution put up an
online poll on foreknowledge in the wake of the national story on
McKinney's comments and the last results before the paper, which had
been trashing McKinney, "disappeared" the poll showed 46% siding with
her. (Some people watching the poll saw her position cross the 50% mark
for a time.) Over 23,000 people participated. Hundreds of people are
attending Ruppert's lectures (I know from personal observation of three
of them and I will be attending a fourth tomorrow. I go when I can to
make sure I have the updates to the story). Thousands of videos have
been sold without an advertising campaign. Additionally, small showings
are being held for church groups, peace groups, the general public.
Again, I have been to a few and have heard about others. The public is
interested in the foreknowledge story. They are not finding it
incredible.

SHOW ME YOUR PROOF OF LOSS OF CREDIBILITY!

The only people who are making this charge are structuralist pundits
such as yourself, who are trying to be gatekeepers of what the left
should be investigating and discussing. The story of vested interests of
structuralists pundits in demonizing people like Ruppert and McKinney is
going to be one of the fascinating sidebars of the 9-11 story. I've
already got researchers looking into it.



>and it distracts us from the main problem:
>Not that a few corrupt individuals are taking the
country over a cliff,

Since you are so dismissive of the idea that corrupt individuals (and I
won't say a few, I think there are more than a few) how are you so sure
this isn't the main problem? A few corrupt individuals took Enron over
the cliff. If that can happen to a large corporation, why can't it
happen to a country?



>but that a system of militarism and corporatism distorts our values,
inverts our priorities, and helps to sow the seeds of hatred overseas.

>Let's focus on that, and not the Carlyle Group.

So shall we also drop all investigations of Enron, too?

My big problem with focusing on "a system" is that systems are not
animate. They are not moral decisionmakers. Do systems exist? Yes. But
at every point in any system, there are people who have the opportunity
to choose a different set of values and priorities. If that were not
true, dissent could not exist. I choose to believe that systems are
created, operated, manipulated distorted, reformed or destroyed by
identifiable individuals with moral responsibility and the capacity to
make choices. I acknowledge that systems, i.e. agglomerations of rules,
practices, policies and cultures, do affect the choices people make, but
I acknowledge the ultimate free will of people to disregard the systemic
pressures and do the right thing. For if we cannot or should not call
individuals to account for their actions because they were part of a bad
"system" then we have destroyed the principle emerging from the
Nuremberg trials, that "just following orders" is not a defense. That
would be a "crazy" and "half-cocked" thing to do.


Kellia Ramares

Add Your Comments
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
Scottie
Fri, Apr 18, 2003 8:19PM
Dana Schuppert
Fri, Apr 18, 2003 6:53PM
AYBABLU
Tue, Jun 4, 2002 9:48AM
Racer X
Tue, Jun 4, 2002 8:23AM
Eric
Tue, Jun 4, 2002 6:18AM
eissen
Mon, Jun 3, 2002 3:48PM
blame the guilty
Mon, Jun 3, 2002 3:31PM
Jack Straw
Mon, Jun 3, 2002 3:27PM
Eric
Mon, Jun 3, 2002 3:16PM
just wondering
Mon, Jun 3, 2002 2:27PM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network