Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Debunking anti-conspiracy theorists
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
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
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Kellia Ramares has good points but she is too polite. Sept. 11 was not another Pearl Harbor (allowing a previously-known attack to occur as an excuse for war) but another Reichstag Fire, a planned action carried out by the US ruling class, in particular the US military and the CIA, with the help of its favorite junior partner, Israel (which is really just the 49th state), so as to perpetrate war abroad and fascism at home. Sept. 11 was Operation Northwood realized. Op. Northwood was the US CIA's plan to create a phony outrageous incident and blame it on Cuba as a pretext to invade Cuba and end the effort to build socialism in Cuba. There is nothing new under the sun, and George War Bush and his Nazi cronies have absolutely no new thoughts among them whatsoever.
As to The Progressive, it is not part of the Left at all as it is not a socialist publication. It supports capitalism and is generally a Democratic Party mouthpiece. As we know, the Democrats are the twin party of capitalism which like its twin, the Republicans, support GWB's wars and fascism at home, and that support includes support of the capitalist, Zionist, racist, theocratic, women-hating state of Israel, also known as the US military base to protect US oil profits in the Middle East.
The socialist press has been carrying the revelations of Bush's lies as they become apparent, although not with sufficient depth and speed, in my opinion. Operation Northwood has also been covered in detail in the socialist press and compared to Sept. 11.
Both the general and particular are important. Yes, it is the system, and it is also the incidents that teach people the nature of the system. Sept. 11 was an act of desperation on the part of a bankrupt social order, as was the Reichstag Fire.
Those of us who remember the assassinations of the 1960s, especially that of Pres. Kennedy, also remember the importance of unraveling the lies perpetrated by the government around all those assassinations so as to expose the nature of the system, and t o teach people to question everything and how to question, in particular, what the alternatives might be and why.
To all those who are doing the outstanding work of exposing who perpetrated Sept. 11 and why, keep up the good work. My personal theory at this point is that there were no hijackers on those planes; that they were all on automatic pilot and controlled from the ground. More research needs to be done, and it is being done. In fact, the lies are being exposed faster than the lies of the 1960s assassinations were because the economy is in much worse shape and the ruling class not only cannot deliver the goods and services to most of us, but proudly and contemptuously refuses to do so and in fact, insists on taking as much from us both materially and in terms of civil rights and civil liberties. When the ruling class no longer delivers the goods and services to most of us, their lies are not believed and their fascist laws simply encourage more resistance to their bankrupt social order which should be put into the dustbin of history.
As to The Progressive, it is not part of the Left at all as it is not a socialist publication. It supports capitalism and is generally a Democratic Party mouthpiece. As we know, the Democrats are the twin party of capitalism which like its twin, the Republicans, support GWB's wars and fascism at home, and that support includes support of the capitalist, Zionist, racist, theocratic, women-hating state of Israel, also known as the US military base to protect US oil profits in the Middle East.
The socialist press has been carrying the revelations of Bush's lies as they become apparent, although not with sufficient depth and speed, in my opinion. Operation Northwood has also been covered in detail in the socialist press and compared to Sept. 11.
Both the general and particular are important. Yes, it is the system, and it is also the incidents that teach people the nature of the system. Sept. 11 was an act of desperation on the part of a bankrupt social order, as was the Reichstag Fire.
Those of us who remember the assassinations of the 1960s, especially that of Pres. Kennedy, also remember the importance of unraveling the lies perpetrated by the government around all those assassinations so as to expose the nature of the system, and t o teach people to question everything and how to question, in particular, what the alternatives might be and why.
To all those who are doing the outstanding work of exposing who perpetrated Sept. 11 and why, keep up the good work. My personal theory at this point is that there were no hijackers on those planes; that they were all on automatic pilot and controlled from the ground. More research needs to be done, and it is being done. In fact, the lies are being exposed faster than the lies of the 1960s assassinations were because the economy is in much worse shape and the ruling class not only cannot deliver the goods and services to most of us, but proudly and contemptuously refuses to do so and in fact, insists on taking as much from us both materially and in terms of civil rights and civil liberties. When the ruling class no longer delivers the goods and services to most of us, their lies are not believed and their fascist laws simply encourage more resistance to their bankrupt social order which should be put into the dustbin of history.
the top 1% who earn the lion's share of the nation's income, go uncounted in most income-distribution reports. Even those who study the question sometimes overlook the wealthiest among us. For instance, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, relying on the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, released a report in December 1997 showing that in the last two decades, "incomes of the richest fifth increased by 30% or nearly $27,000 after adjusting for inflation." The average income of the top 20% was $117,500, or almost 13 times larger than the $9,250 average income of the poorest 20%.
But where are the super rich? An average of $117,500 is an upper-middle income, not at all representative of a rich cohort, let alone a super-rich one. Many such reports about income distribution are based on U.S. Census Bureau surveys that regularly leave Big Money out of the picture. A few phone calls to the Census Bureau in Washington D.C. revealed that for years the Bureau never interviewed anyone who had an income higher than $300,000. Or, if interviewed, they were never recorded as above the "reportable upper limit" of $300,000, the top figure allowed by the bureau's computer program. In 1994, the bureau lifted the upper limit to $1 million. This still excludes the richest1%, the hundreds of billionaires and thousands of multip;millionaires who make many times more than $1 million a year. The super rich simply have been computerized out of the Census Bureau's picture.
When asked why this procedure was used, an official said that the Census Bureaus computers could not handle higher amounts. A most improbable excuse, since once the bureau decided to raise the upper limit from $300,000 to $1 million, it did so without any difficulty, and it could do so again. Another reason the official gave was "confidentiality." Given place coordinates, someone with a very high income might be identified. Furthermore, he said, high-income respondents usually understate their investment returns by about 40% to 50%. Finally, the official argued that since the super rich are so few, they are not likely to show up in a national sample. And since they are so few, including them would skew the sample, wouldn't it?
But by designating the (decapitated) top 20% of the entire nation as the "richest" quintile, the Census Bureau is including millions of people who make as little as $70,000. If you make over $100,000, you are in the top 4%. Now $100,000 is a tidy sum indeed, but it's not super rich--as in Mellon, Morgan or Murdoch. The difference between Michael Eisner, the Disney CEO who pocketed $565 million in 1996, and the individuals who average $9,250 is not 13 to one--the reported spread between highest and lowest quintiles--but over 61,000 to one.
Much attention has been given to the top corporate managers who rake in tens of millions of dollars annually in salaries and perks. But little is said about the tens of billions that their corporations distribute to the top investor class each year, again that invisible 1% of the population. Media publicity that focuses exclusively on a handful of greedy top executives conveniently avoids any exposure of the super rich as a class. In fact, reining in the CEOs who cut into the corporate take would well serve the big shareholders' interests.
Two studies that do their best to muddy our understanding of wealth, conducted by the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution--and widely reported in the major media--found that individuals typically become rich not from inheritance but by maintaining their health and working hard. Most of their savings comes from their earnings and has nothing to do with inherited family wealth, the researchers would have us believe.
In typical social science fashion, they prefigured their findings by limiting the scope of their data. Both studies fail to note that achieving a high income is itself in large part due to inherited advantages. Those coming from upper-strata households have a far better opportunity to maintain their health and develop their performance, attend superior schools, and achieve the advanced professional training, contacts, and influence needed to land higher paying positions.
More importantly both the Rand and Brookings studies failed to include the super rich, those who sit on immense and largely inherited fortunes. Instead, the investigators concentrated on upper middle-class professionals and managers, most of whom earn in the $100,000 to $300,000 range-which indicates the researchers have no idea how rich the very rich really are.
When pressed on this point, they explain that there is a shortage of data on the very rich. Being such a tiny percentage, "they're an extremely difficult part of the population to survey," pleads Rand economist James P. Smith, offering the same excuse given by the Census Bureau officials. We should not overlook the fact that the existence of the super rich refutes Smith's findings about self-earned wealth merely because he finds the group difficult to survey. He seemed to admit as much when he told The New York Times, "This [study] shouldn't be taken as a statement that the Rockefellers didn't give to their kids and the Kennedys didn't give to their kids." Indeed, most of the really big money is inherited--and by a portion of the population that is so minuscule as to be judged statistically inaccessible.
The higher one goes up the income scale, the greater the rate of capital accumulation. Drawing on Congressional Budget Office data, economist Paul Krugman notes that not only have the top 20% grown more affluent compared with everyone below, the top 5% have grown richer compared with the next 15%. The top 1% have grown richer compared with the next 4%. And the top 0.25% have grown richer than the next 0.75%. (Even the CBO data isn't perfect. It supplements census surveys with IRS data on the wealthy's after-tax earnings. This leads to $374,000 as the figure for the average after-tax, post-tax shelter income of the top 1%--about the income of a successful opthamologist in San Francisco or New York.)
It has been estimated that if children's play blocks represented $1,000 each, over 98% of us would have incomes represented by piles of blocks that went not more than a few yards off the ground. The blocks of the top 1% would stack many times higher than the Eiffel Tower.
Marx's prediction about the growing gap between rich and poor still haunts the land--and the entire planet. The growing concentration of wealth creates still more poverty. As some few get ever richer, more people fall deeper into destitution, finding it increasingly difficult to emerge from it. The same pattern holds throughout much of the world. For years now, as the wealth of the few has been growing, the number of poor has been increasing at a faster rate than that of the earth's population. A rising tide sinks many boats.
To grasp the true extent of wealth and income inequality in the United States, we should stop treating the "top quintile"--the upper middle class-as the "richest" cohort in the country. And we need to look beyond the Census Bureau's cooked statistics. We need to catch sight of that tiny stratospheric apex that owns most of the world.
Sources: "Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends," Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (December 16, 1997); "Trends in the Distribution of After-Tax Income: An Analysis of Congressional Budget Office Data" Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (September 1997); The New York Times, July 7, 1995.
AMERICA BESEIGED
by Michael Parenti
AMERICA BESIEGED deals with the underly-ing forces within U.S. society that deeply affect our lives. Michael Parenti writes: "We are indeed a nation besieged, not from without but from within, not subverted from below but from above. The moneyed power exercises a near monopoly influence over our political life, over the economy, the state, and the media. . . . This book invites the reader to stop blaming the powerless and poor and, in that good old American phrase, start 'following the money.' That is the first and most important step toward lifting the siege and bringing democracy back to life."
Available from People's Video/Audio at discount price ($10.00 US/$12.00 Canadian-S & H included). Toll-free credit card order: 800-823-4507. Check or money order to: People's Video, PO Box 99514, Seattle WA 98199. Fax with credit card number and expiration date to: (206) 782-6253. Email: <peoplesvideo [at] vida.com>
But where are the super rich? An average of $117,500 is an upper-middle income, not at all representative of a rich cohort, let alone a super-rich one. Many such reports about income distribution are based on U.S. Census Bureau surveys that regularly leave Big Money out of the picture. A few phone calls to the Census Bureau in Washington D.C. revealed that for years the Bureau never interviewed anyone who had an income higher than $300,000. Or, if interviewed, they were never recorded as above the "reportable upper limit" of $300,000, the top figure allowed by the bureau's computer program. In 1994, the bureau lifted the upper limit to $1 million. This still excludes the richest1%, the hundreds of billionaires and thousands of multip;millionaires who make many times more than $1 million a year. The super rich simply have been computerized out of the Census Bureau's picture.
When asked why this procedure was used, an official said that the Census Bureaus computers could not handle higher amounts. A most improbable excuse, since once the bureau decided to raise the upper limit from $300,000 to $1 million, it did so without any difficulty, and it could do so again. Another reason the official gave was "confidentiality." Given place coordinates, someone with a very high income might be identified. Furthermore, he said, high-income respondents usually understate their investment returns by about 40% to 50%. Finally, the official argued that since the super rich are so few, they are not likely to show up in a national sample. And since they are so few, including them would skew the sample, wouldn't it?
But by designating the (decapitated) top 20% of the entire nation as the "richest" quintile, the Census Bureau is including millions of people who make as little as $70,000. If you make over $100,000, you are in the top 4%. Now $100,000 is a tidy sum indeed, but it's not super rich--as in Mellon, Morgan or Murdoch. The difference between Michael Eisner, the Disney CEO who pocketed $565 million in 1996, and the individuals who average $9,250 is not 13 to one--the reported spread between highest and lowest quintiles--but over 61,000 to one.
Much attention has been given to the top corporate managers who rake in tens of millions of dollars annually in salaries and perks. But little is said about the tens of billions that their corporations distribute to the top investor class each year, again that invisible 1% of the population. Media publicity that focuses exclusively on a handful of greedy top executives conveniently avoids any exposure of the super rich as a class. In fact, reining in the CEOs who cut into the corporate take would well serve the big shareholders' interests.
Two studies that do their best to muddy our understanding of wealth, conducted by the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution--and widely reported in the major media--found that individuals typically become rich not from inheritance but by maintaining their health and working hard. Most of their savings comes from their earnings and has nothing to do with inherited family wealth, the researchers would have us believe.
In typical social science fashion, they prefigured their findings by limiting the scope of their data. Both studies fail to note that achieving a high income is itself in large part due to inherited advantages. Those coming from upper-strata households have a far better opportunity to maintain their health and develop their performance, attend superior schools, and achieve the advanced professional training, contacts, and influence needed to land higher paying positions.
More importantly both the Rand and Brookings studies failed to include the super rich, those who sit on immense and largely inherited fortunes. Instead, the investigators concentrated on upper middle-class professionals and managers, most of whom earn in the $100,000 to $300,000 range-which indicates the researchers have no idea how rich the very rich really are.
When pressed on this point, they explain that there is a shortage of data on the very rich. Being such a tiny percentage, "they're an extremely difficult part of the population to survey," pleads Rand economist James P. Smith, offering the same excuse given by the Census Bureau officials. We should not overlook the fact that the existence of the super rich refutes Smith's findings about self-earned wealth merely because he finds the group difficult to survey. He seemed to admit as much when he told The New York Times, "This [study] shouldn't be taken as a statement that the Rockefellers didn't give to their kids and the Kennedys didn't give to their kids." Indeed, most of the really big money is inherited--and by a portion of the population that is so minuscule as to be judged statistically inaccessible.
The higher one goes up the income scale, the greater the rate of capital accumulation. Drawing on Congressional Budget Office data, economist Paul Krugman notes that not only have the top 20% grown more affluent compared with everyone below, the top 5% have grown richer compared with the next 15%. The top 1% have grown richer compared with the next 4%. And the top 0.25% have grown richer than the next 0.75%. (Even the CBO data isn't perfect. It supplements census surveys with IRS data on the wealthy's after-tax earnings. This leads to $374,000 as the figure for the average after-tax, post-tax shelter income of the top 1%--about the income of a successful opthamologist in San Francisco or New York.)
It has been estimated that if children's play blocks represented $1,000 each, over 98% of us would have incomes represented by piles of blocks that went not more than a few yards off the ground. The blocks of the top 1% would stack many times higher than the Eiffel Tower.
Marx's prediction about the growing gap between rich and poor still haunts the land--and the entire planet. The growing concentration of wealth creates still more poverty. As some few get ever richer, more people fall deeper into destitution, finding it increasingly difficult to emerge from it. The same pattern holds throughout much of the world. For years now, as the wealth of the few has been growing, the number of poor has been increasing at a faster rate than that of the earth's population. A rising tide sinks many boats.
To grasp the true extent of wealth and income inequality in the United States, we should stop treating the "top quintile"--the upper middle class-as the "richest" cohort in the country. And we need to look beyond the Census Bureau's cooked statistics. We need to catch sight of that tiny stratospheric apex that owns most of the world.
Sources: "Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends," Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (December 16, 1997); "Trends in the Distribution of After-Tax Income: An Analysis of Congressional Budget Office Data" Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (September 1997); The New York Times, July 7, 1995.
AMERICA BESEIGED
by Michael Parenti
AMERICA BESIEGED deals with the underly-ing forces within U.S. society that deeply affect our lives. Michael Parenti writes: "We are indeed a nation besieged, not from without but from within, not subverted from below but from above. The moneyed power exercises a near monopoly influence over our political life, over the economy, the state, and the media. . . . This book invites the reader to stop blaming the powerless and poor and, in that good old American phrase, start 'following the money.' That is the first and most important step toward lifting the siege and bringing democracy back to life."
Available from People's Video/Audio at discount price ($10.00 US/$12.00 Canadian-S & H included). Toll-free credit card order: 800-823-4507. Check or money order to: People's Video, PO Box 99514, Seattle WA 98199. Fax with credit card number and expiration date to: (206) 782-6253. Email: <peoplesvideo [at] vida.com>
Here's one of my favorites: that 9-11 was pre-planned by the U.S. to, in the poster's words, " b) Justify an increase in Pentagon spending."
This comes up a lot. So what you are saying is that the Pentagon plotted an increase in military spending by flying a plane into the Pentagon? Hilarious!
<Sept. 11 was an act of desperation on the part of a bankrupt social order, as was the Reichstag Fire.>
There's a big difference between torching a building and planning something like 9-11. And besides, research now suggests that Reichstag was indeed the work of a lone anarchist. So much for that comparison.
<To all those who are doing the outstanding work of exposing who perpetrated Sept. 11 and why, keep up the good work. My personal theory at this point is that there were no hijackers on those planes; that they were all on automatic pilot and controlled from the ground.>
For God's sake, man, the co-ordination of manpower and technology to pull that off is simply too daunting to be a credible explanation for 9-11. And don't post those 3,000 links "proving" the technology exists; nobody cares except your choir.
Here's a name that never comes up in all these posts: bin laden. The evidence linking him to 9-11, however incomplete, is far more convincing than the "they could of so they did" nonsense emanating from this board. While the rest of us are trying to figure out how to fight terrorism without bombing innocent people, you clowns are chasing vapor trails and calling it "research." Who's really doing the "dirty work" of the ruling class, I wonder?
This comes up a lot. So what you are saying is that the Pentagon plotted an increase in military spending by flying a plane into the Pentagon? Hilarious!
<Sept. 11 was an act of desperation on the part of a bankrupt social order, as was the Reichstag Fire.>
There's a big difference between torching a building and planning something like 9-11. And besides, research now suggests that Reichstag was indeed the work of a lone anarchist. So much for that comparison.
<To all those who are doing the outstanding work of exposing who perpetrated Sept. 11 and why, keep up the good work. My personal theory at this point is that there were no hijackers on those planes; that they were all on automatic pilot and controlled from the ground.>
For God's sake, man, the co-ordination of manpower and technology to pull that off is simply too daunting to be a credible explanation for 9-11. And don't post those 3,000 links "proving" the technology exists; nobody cares except your choir.
Here's a name that never comes up in all these posts: bin laden. The evidence linking him to 9-11, however incomplete, is far more convincing than the "they could of so they did" nonsense emanating from this board. While the rest of us are trying to figure out how to fight terrorism without bombing innocent people, you clowns are chasing vapor trails and calling it "research." Who's really doing the "dirty work" of the ruling class, I wonder?
Mike, the answer is you. You are doing the dirty work of an illegal administration who in myriad ways per day displays its callous disregard for life.
Whether remote-controlled planes played a part or not, there are more holes in the Official Conspiracy Theory that Bin Laden did it than in those put forth by the "loony left conspiracy theorists." And, just for the record, the reason you hear "Bin Laden" over and over again is because you're meant to. It's called mainstream media. Not exactly a reliable source if you think about it.
Whether remote-controlled planes played a part or not, there are more holes in the Official Conspiracy Theory that Bin Laden did it than in those put forth by the "loony left conspiracy theorists." And, just for the record, the reason you hear "Bin Laden" over and over again is because you're meant to. It's called mainstream media. Not exactly a reliable source if you think about it.
So in other words, there's no reason to be concerned about al-Queda? We should just let that terror network be, since we're all looking for the smoking gun that will prove that Rumsfeld sat in his office on 9-11 waiting for the plane to hit him on the head?
All mainstream media is to be disregarded? Mike Ruppert is a more reliable source than, say, Agence France-Press or the Guardian of London?
The evidence I've seen, including the statements from bin laden's own mouth and assessments by countries hostile to the U.S. like Libya and Syria, indicate that al-Queda (if not bin laden himself) planned the attacks and that they succeeded because of the incompetence of the U.S. intelligence establishment and the White House.
These premises are the starting points for any rational discussion of 9/11. Everything else--including the conspiracy mongering on this board--is just so much lunatic ranting.
Conspiracy theory is the leftism of fools.
All mainstream media is to be disregarded? Mike Ruppert is a more reliable source than, say, Agence France-Press or the Guardian of London?
The evidence I've seen, including the statements from bin laden's own mouth and assessments by countries hostile to the U.S. like Libya and Syria, indicate that al-Queda (if not bin laden himself) planned the attacks and that they succeeded because of the incompetence of the U.S. intelligence establishment and the White House.
These premises are the starting points for any rational discussion of 9/11. Everything else--including the conspiracy mongering on this board--is just so much lunatic ranting.
Conspiracy theory is the leftism of fools.
a recent audio analysis using new sophisticated methods of tapes made during the JFK assassination concluded with over a 99% certainty that indeed shot(s) were fired from the "grassy knoll"
and there was already enough documentation that any open minded person could only conclude the same thing.
there had to have been a lot of people in high places ready to cover that up. . .
George Bush, who has never done a legal, ethical thing in his life, and who conspired with his brother to defraud black voters in florida in order to steal the presidential office, who is up to his neck in the Enron scandal, whose daddy was the head of the CIA, who is linked to CIA drug running and whose administration is a bunch of arms dealing, drug smuggling crooks. . .and these leftist intelligentsia imbeciles cannot imagine they would ever hurt a US citizen
they obviously have a different agenda than truth, or justice
The wealthy and powered elite, the Bushes, and high ups in the FBI, and CIA etc do not care about the citizens. . .of this country or any other
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns anyone of any significance in the major media"
William Colby - Former CIA director
here it is right from the horses mouth. . .why would the CIA want total control of the media?
there is no justification for this if you want to assume they have the interests of the people at heart. . .none
the only way to view this total control of the media, is as the means to exercise total control and domination of the people. . .and anyone you are willing to enslave, you are willing to kill, because they mean nothing to you
the absurdity of the notion that these people are not bad enough to kill 3000 citizens, is further revealed when one examines the involvement of the CIA in bringing drugs into the country
one could say that the CIA was directly involved and profitting from a drug smuggling on a massive scale that may well have killed and destroyed a hundred times as many human beings as the 9.11 attacks.
and the FBI history is not better. . .the main job of the FBI has been to silence dissent against the ruling class. . .
these institutions are bsically organized crime with a badge. . .there are hundreds of books chronically the long dark sleazy history of US Intelligence organizations.
The real wonder is how these leftist pundits can defend them at all.
deva
and there was already enough documentation that any open minded person could only conclude the same thing.
there had to have been a lot of people in high places ready to cover that up. . .
George Bush, who has never done a legal, ethical thing in his life, and who conspired with his brother to defraud black voters in florida in order to steal the presidential office, who is up to his neck in the Enron scandal, whose daddy was the head of the CIA, who is linked to CIA drug running and whose administration is a bunch of arms dealing, drug smuggling crooks. . .and these leftist intelligentsia imbeciles cannot imagine they would ever hurt a US citizen
they obviously have a different agenda than truth, or justice
The wealthy and powered elite, the Bushes, and high ups in the FBI, and CIA etc do not care about the citizens. . .of this country or any other
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns anyone of any significance in the major media"
William Colby - Former CIA director
here it is right from the horses mouth. . .why would the CIA want total control of the media?
there is no justification for this if you want to assume they have the interests of the people at heart. . .none
the only way to view this total control of the media, is as the means to exercise total control and domination of the people. . .and anyone you are willing to enslave, you are willing to kill, because they mean nothing to you
the absurdity of the notion that these people are not bad enough to kill 3000 citizens, is further revealed when one examines the involvement of the CIA in bringing drugs into the country
one could say that the CIA was directly involved and profitting from a drug smuggling on a massive scale that may well have killed and destroyed a hundred times as many human beings as the 9.11 attacks.
and the FBI history is not better. . .the main job of the FBI has been to silence dissent against the ruling class. . .
these institutions are bsically organized crime with a badge. . .there are hundreds of books chronically the long dark sleazy history of US Intelligence organizations.
The real wonder is how these leftist pundits can defend them at all.
deva
"Conspiracy theory is the leftism of fools. " - mike
and boy, the fools are rampant on indybay!
I particularly love how they come out of the woodwork like roaches when someone makes a comment like mike did above! Spewing every speculative rant imaginable on every unsolved mystery known to man.
Like religious zealots with the fervor to convert you to Jehovah's witness on their bicycles pedaling their bunk door to door.
But hey, they sure are entertaining!
and boy, the fools are rampant on indybay!
I particularly love how they come out of the woodwork like roaches when someone makes a comment like mike did above! Spewing every speculative rant imaginable on every unsolved mystery known to man.
Like religious zealots with the fervor to convert you to Jehovah's witness on their bicycles pedaling their bunk door to door.
But hey, they sure are entertaining!
i'm up and fully alert, thank you. Unlike you conspiracy drones, I'm not sleepwalking through history, muttering cliches about the grassy knoll and the latest remote control technology available from Radio Shack, where, evidence now indicates, 9-11 was actually planned by two geeky guys in glasses using toy walkie-talkies like the ones they have on Star Trek, while overhead the aliens hovered, their huge bug eyes masking the malevolent intelligence that lurks within, the earth a mere pawn in their galactic power grab.
... here's some more crazy, out of hand conspiracy theories. the Whitewater galactic land grab? did you guys know that your tax dollars (and mine to, whaddya know....) helped fund an investigation that led to no trial or convictions? way to go guys on the "right" side of things! thanks!
The blow job that brought washington to its knees? he lied about that blow job. impeach him. "we're republicans, dammit, and we'll get to the bottom of that blow job." remove him from power. nixon resigned. but dammit we'll impeach clinton before he can resign. its unconstitutional to lie, not about illegal government activity, but about blow jobs. bill clinton, that communist, conspiratorial, covering up, pervert.
conspiracies on the left and conspiracies on the right. you tell me, what's the difference? maybe its part of human nature?
[NOTE: the final government report, THE ONE FINAL COMMISSIONED REPORT, on all information relating to the assasination of President Kennedy, WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW UNTIL SOMETHING LIKE 2060. ? AND THAT DATE HAD JUST RECENTLY BEEN MOVED AHEAD ANOTHER 40 YEARS. ? SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. this isn't a fucking political joke, and the point is, conspiracy or not, i think that's a pretty damn interesting fact of american history, and it makes me ask the question: WHY?]
The blow job that brought washington to its knees? he lied about that blow job. impeach him. "we're republicans, dammit, and we'll get to the bottom of that blow job." remove him from power. nixon resigned. but dammit we'll impeach clinton before he can resign. its unconstitutional to lie, not about illegal government activity, but about blow jobs. bill clinton, that communist, conspiratorial, covering up, pervert.
conspiracies on the left and conspiracies on the right. you tell me, what's the difference? maybe its part of human nature?
[NOTE: the final government report, THE ONE FINAL COMMISSIONED REPORT, on all information relating to the assasination of President Kennedy, WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW UNTIL SOMETHING LIKE 2060. ? AND THAT DATE HAD JUST RECENTLY BEEN MOVED AHEAD ANOTHER 40 YEARS. ? SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. this isn't a fucking political joke, and the point is, conspiracy or not, i think that's a pretty damn interesting fact of american history, and it makes me ask the question: WHY?]
It was about the perjury.
"I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman." - Clinton
No conspiracy there. Don't blame the Republicans for that. Clinton locked this country up in scandal after scandal.
In fact this is the biggest anti-conspiracy argument there is. I mean here, we have GWB, the shady chararacter, with a speculative background from a long line of ambiguity, capable of launching an attack on the nation, blood for oil as so many of you have put it, conceiling it by wrapping it up in a tarp of patriotism and marching to the drums of war.
And then there's Clinton. Unable to keep the fact that he stuck his penis an intern's mouth from being shown on CNN.
"I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman." - Clinton
No conspiracy there. Don't blame the Republicans for that. Clinton locked this country up in scandal after scandal.
In fact this is the biggest anti-conspiracy argument there is. I mean here, we have GWB, the shady chararacter, with a speculative background from a long line of ambiguity, capable of launching an attack on the nation, blood for oil as so many of you have put it, conceiling it by wrapping it up in a tarp of patriotism and marching to the drums of war.
And then there's Clinton. Unable to keep the fact that he stuck his penis an intern's mouth from being shown on CNN.
So what? What difference does it make?
It's hypocritical to make all these unfounded allegations against against GWB (who hasn't been proven to be hiding anything from you) while defending Clinton whom we all know lied to us.
I'm actually defending fellatio, also privacy. It's none of your business what consenting adults do with each other unless you are one of them.
Had you've been following the discussion, a previous post made by "this thing here" attempted to defend clinton by sarcasm and relating it to conspiracy.
however...
>It's none of your business what consenting adults do with each other unless you are one of them.
it is my business when it locks the nation up in scandal for months. It's your business too. You shouldn't be so flippant about it.
however...
>It's none of your business what consenting adults do with each other unless you are one of them.
it is my business when it locks the nation up in scandal for months. It's your business too. You shouldn't be so flippant about it.
What bin Laden evidence? Calling it "incomplete" is like saying Hitler wasn't very tolerant. The FBI's director Mueller said in San Francisco in April that there is no "paper trail" re 9/11. Are you talking about the magic passport that floated out of the WTC inferno, intact? Or that video that never showed people's lips moving, that had binLaden, the son of a construction magnate, talk of buildings made of iron (vs steel), that had people travel by the light of a full moon that was two weeks away from the supposed date? Do tell me your name, i got a bridge to sell you.
The Republican led investigation "locked the nation up in scandal for months." It wasted a lot of taxpayer's money, too.
Face it guys, America reelected a pot smoking, draft dodging fornicator. That’s who we like. So what if he was a crook? We don’t care. All politicians are crooks. At least Clinton was able to get the First Penis hard without taking any Viagra. Could Dole have done that?
Face it guys, America reelected a pot smoking, draft dodging fornicator. That’s who we like. So what if he was a crook? We don’t care. All politicians are crooks. At least Clinton was able to get the First Penis hard without taking any Viagra. Could Dole have done that?
Klinton lied to a Federal Judge. That's a big NO NO! Word of advise, don't lie to a Federal Judge when your girlfriend has never heard of 24-hr martenizing.
There wouldn't have been any "Republican led investigation" had Clinton:
1. Kept his dick in his pants.
or
2. Not have lied about not keeping his dick in his pants.
Either way, blame is where blame is due. Justice was done by:
1. Impeachment
and
2. Censure
How'd you like to have the place in the History Books held by Clinton? I wonder if he's even remotely embarrassed?
1. Kept his dick in his pants.
or
2. Not have lied about not keeping his dick in his pants.
Either way, blame is where blame is due. Justice was done by:
1. Impeachment
and
2. Censure
How'd you like to have the place in the History Books held by Clinton? I wonder if he's even remotely embarrassed?
you are headed for destruction
all your base are belong to us
make your time
http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/AYB2.swf
all your base are belong to us
make your time
http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/AYB2.swf
There was no passport floating out of the WTC inferno, finding its way to the bottom intact. The passport was found in a hijacker's car left at the airport, along with his Will. And there is some very good evidence. Two of which are videos. A few videos of bin Laden admitting to it. One found by the USA soldiers, which I doubt you would believe no matter how many experts found it credible. Some videos given to Algeeria TV with bin Laden admitting to it. Then, we have the surveillence videos in the airports showing the terrorists getting ready to board the planes, which have been shown on TV. Some other very convincing evidence is where some of the terrorists had taken flight lessons prior to 9/11/01. And let's not forget the taping of the voices speaking in Arabic found on the tape from the airplane. All of the above being enough to be convicted in a court of law. The above evidence is just a few things I can remember off the top of my head. I am sure there is more.
I'm not sure why some of you have trouble thinking some men living in caves at times could do something like 9/11. It has been proven in the past that these people can definitely hijack airplanes. What is so impossible to believe that some had just taken flying lessons not only hijacked the planes as done in the past, but flew the planes, too, instead of making the pilots fly them.
I do wish someone in the media would do their homework and publically make you conspiracy theorists look like the idiots you are; but I am sure they find these to be too ridiculous to even mention on the air, let alone refute them.
Dana
I'm not sure why some of you have trouble thinking some men living in caves at times could do something like 9/11. It has been proven in the past that these people can definitely hijack airplanes. What is so impossible to believe that some had just taken flying lessons not only hijacked the planes as done in the past, but flew the planes, too, instead of making the pilots fly them.
I do wish someone in the media would do their homework and publically make you conspiracy theorists look like the idiots you are; but I am sure they find these to be too ridiculous to even mention on the air, let alone refute them.
Dana
Phrases such as "crazy conspiracy theorists" have become the pejorative that Communist, or pinko used to be.
- if they are crazy then it is fair enough
Didn't it take a "conspiracy" to actually carry out the Sept. 11th attacks?
-that is not so much a conspiricy. A "crazy" conspiricy, as we view it, is one that requires many many people to keep a secret for a long period of time (a hand full of people for a few weeks just doesnt count.. infact the fact that conspiricies dont work very well is exactly why al quaeda did it that way). the reason why it is unlikely is that these people must all find it morally acceptible enough or be under constant threat (not practical because how many people do you need to provide that threat and then you jsut arent solving any problems). Because in the US it is very easy to go to the media or overseas and consider yourself to be reasonably safe from retaliation. Also the money you could make out of busting a huge conspiricy would be pretty good ... if you had proof. which brings us to the issue that the money can be pretty good even if you are just making it up.
The big reason why the US government would not be involved in conspiricies is that the government changes every so often. therefore if a previous administration had a huge cover up the next administration could achieve lots of political mileage by busting them. Also any person who continues the conspiricy opens themselves up to the possible punishment later on. It just wouldnt be worth a democratic presidents hide to keep a republican presidents skeletons in the closet.
This is related to the fact that the US government is accountable for its lies (people find out and then beat them with it at the next election) and that the people involved are generally accessible. (try getting an interview with iranian scientists).
a) Increase his popularity by waging war
- if he got found out he would be given the death penalty I assume.. only an idiot would play around with that.
You have used a ridiculous form of argument that is analogous to.
"The Russians arranged the AXIS and WWII so that Stalin could kill lots of russians after the axis was defeated"
- Yes you could have predicted it and WWII did in a sense help him out there but to conect them as a conspiricy theory is obviously stupid.. you can think of any other two events in world history and construct a conspiricy around them.
- by the way the War is BAD for the economy and therefore BAD for rich people.
b) Justify an increase in Pentagon spending
- Why would he want that? he now has to spend that money on specific things it may well reduce his freedom.
> c) Boost the profits of the Carlyle Group, a private
military investment group that includes Bush's father, among other heavyweights.
Wouldnt it be alot easier jsut to secretly give him the money? it would require a lot less people to be involved in your conspiricy. And he would jsut risk some sort of a fraud investigation not the death penalty.
- Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, who, back in April, strongly hinted that the Administration had prior knowledge of the attack.
That is because she has been listening to YOU!
get to the bottom of this tragedy, unlimited by your level of skepticism.
- I know I am VERY skeptical.. I am skeptical of Conspiricy theories and any claims that are not backed up by more facts than there are that suggest otherwise.
How many Presidents have thrown away
innocent lives by committing soldiers to wars for our imperialistic ends
- You dont get executed for starting a war for the interests of your country.
You do get executed for intentionally killing your own citizens as part of a conspiricy.
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?
- you are clearly creating conspiricy theories as fast as you can think of them because they do not come together as a consistant story.
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.
- To have strictly obeyed that principle just about every man in the german army would be in jail for life. Possibly also quite a few of the allied and resistance fighters.
- if they are crazy then it is fair enough
Didn't it take a "conspiracy" to actually carry out the Sept. 11th attacks?
-that is not so much a conspiricy. A "crazy" conspiricy, as we view it, is one that requires many many people to keep a secret for a long period of time (a hand full of people for a few weeks just doesnt count.. infact the fact that conspiricies dont work very well is exactly why al quaeda did it that way). the reason why it is unlikely is that these people must all find it morally acceptible enough or be under constant threat (not practical because how many people do you need to provide that threat and then you jsut arent solving any problems). Because in the US it is very easy to go to the media or overseas and consider yourself to be reasonably safe from retaliation. Also the money you could make out of busting a huge conspiricy would be pretty good ... if you had proof. which brings us to the issue that the money can be pretty good even if you are just making it up.
The big reason why the US government would not be involved in conspiricies is that the government changes every so often. therefore if a previous administration had a huge cover up the next administration could achieve lots of political mileage by busting them. Also any person who continues the conspiricy opens themselves up to the possible punishment later on. It just wouldnt be worth a democratic presidents hide to keep a republican presidents skeletons in the closet.
This is related to the fact that the US government is accountable for its lies (people find out and then beat them with it at the next election) and that the people involved are generally accessible. (try getting an interview with iranian scientists).
a) Increase his popularity by waging war
- if he got found out he would be given the death penalty I assume.. only an idiot would play around with that.
You have used a ridiculous form of argument that is analogous to.
"The Russians arranged the AXIS and WWII so that Stalin could kill lots of russians after the axis was defeated"
- Yes you could have predicted it and WWII did in a sense help him out there but to conect them as a conspiricy theory is obviously stupid.. you can think of any other two events in world history and construct a conspiricy around them.
- by the way the War is BAD for the economy and therefore BAD for rich people.
b) Justify an increase in Pentagon spending
- Why would he want that? he now has to spend that money on specific things it may well reduce his freedom.
> c) Boost the profits of the Carlyle Group, a private
military investment group that includes Bush's father, among other heavyweights.
Wouldnt it be alot easier jsut to secretly give him the money? it would require a lot less people to be involved in your conspiricy. And he would jsut risk some sort of a fraud investigation not the death penalty.
- Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, who, back in April, strongly hinted that the Administration had prior knowledge of the attack.
That is because she has been listening to YOU!
get to the bottom of this tragedy, unlimited by your level of skepticism.
- I know I am VERY skeptical.. I am skeptical of Conspiricy theories and any claims that are not backed up by more facts than there are that suggest otherwise.
How many Presidents have thrown away
innocent lives by committing soldiers to wars for our imperialistic ends
- You dont get executed for starting a war for the interests of your country.
You do get executed for intentionally killing your own citizens as part of a conspiricy.
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?
- you are clearly creating conspiricy theories as fast as you can think of them because they do not come together as a consistant story.
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.
- To have strictly obeyed that principle just about every man in the german army would be in jail for life. Possibly also quite a few of the allied and resistance fighters.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 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.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network