There is an unstated corollary to the argument put forward by Mr. Lindroff. A very influential conspiracy theory is that a McCain presidency will initiate the end times. Either his presidency will be incompetent and bring greater financial ruin to the US than the Bush administration delivered, or, worse, he and his wacky VP will initiate nuclear war in a demented attempt to bring on the Christian rapture. Maybe readers can put that canard behind them too, and see and weighing McCain’s stated policies sanely. McCain’s policies are just policies, like the policies of any other past failed or successful candidate.

And, if you look at McCain, the man and his policies, that way, you will see that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO vote for Obama if you don’t like the Democrat party’s policies. I am sorry Mr. Lindroff did not address this natural extension of his chosen theme.

In Mr. Lindroff’s opinion the conspiracy theories detract from the credibility of the progressive movement. I respectfully disagree. In theory, the progressive movement seeks social justice, environmental protection, an end to the wars of empire, and re-establishment of a democratic balance within the US. In reality, ‘seeks’ is too strong a word. The progressive movement uses these issues as talking points to demonize Republicans. Except for a fanatic minority, progressives have no commitment except to the Democratic party. You might not realize, but non-progressive main stream people see this. They know that legitimate pro-peace, pro-environment, pro-constitution candidates ran for the presidential Democratic nomination and received trivially small support. They have seen how progressives treat Nader and McKinney, candidates who call out for the kinds of thing progressives say they support. They know Obama has the progressive vote and they know Obama is no progressive. Everyone else sees clearly that progressives are fakes.

So, even though progressive policies are good, the character of the movement that delivers them is, quite reasonably, not to be trusted. That’s your credibility problem in a nutshell.

I am a Canadian, writing from the city of Edmonton. Good luck to you all this election day.

Dear Mr. _ L I N D O R F F _,

For someone with your demonstrable investigative journalism credentials,

___ I am dismayed that your motivation terminates prematurely

___ with lackluster sycophants of the current "well" acknowledged

___ corrupt and duplicitous officious criminals in governance.

Is it possible for you to consider what goes for what might be your usual sources at NIST ( perhaps Popular Mechanics ) or the universities -- are properly in fear of their careers and livelihood confronting the administration's narrative ?

Do you really believe that the 9_!_! Commission's narrative is a work of non-fiction ?

¿ Perhaps your depth of uncovering has only scratched the Teflon-coated edificial version of reality, and/or you are so complacent in the righteousness of the powers that be -- that the LARGEST EVER CRIME against humankind DESERVES so little truth and attention ?

I am disappointed, in you as a "representative" of progressive issues, to be so superficial and expedient. Even a few college students w/o your experience, nor potential for impact -- have done SO much more.

No valuable awards are going to be given for mediocracy, but perhaps you don't ( and never did ) aspire to a Pulitzer ?

Namaste

This is a very sad article indeed.

The 911 attacks were not well executed- they were full of gaffs and evident blunders- WTC7, the PNAC doc, mahmoud ahmad's presence in Washington etc.

Who would confess to their role in the conspiracy? This is such a nonsensical notion. You feel Cheney is going to fall on his knees on Meet the press and volunteer himself for the firing squad? Or anyone else who would be of a mind to get involved in such a conspiracy in the first place? There is just no reasoning behind these forms of thinking, its almost painful to read.

Finally, you say rightly that conspiracies do happen. Yet you regret the presence of conspiracy theories, ie positions that posit the possibility of a conspiracy. There is just no logic behind what you are saying, and it just illustrates how emasculated the left gets when it is confronted with something that could be interpreted as a conspiracy theory. Look at the facts, and go where they take you; anything else is not responsible journalism; it is pandering to paradigms, in the same way as mainstream journalism- as a reaction against which the site thrives.

It should also be mentioned that the 911 theory is not that "911 was an inside job", rather that there is sufficient evidence for government complicity to warrant a new criminal investigation into this. I think if you were aware of this you wouldnt have written this article.

www.thedailymohsin.wordpress.com

Mr Lindorff,
I think you're being extremely naive. An honest interpretation of recent history seems to suggest that the conspiracy theorists have had it right most of the time. Sure, we like to call them crackpot lefties, because we can't accept being on the losing side. But those of us who have believed the official government story are proven wrong over and over. There is no truth in our world. With our illuminati, NSA, CIA, FBI, Masons, JFK, Robert, King, Cuba, Iran-Contra, mind control, secret weapons. Show me the truth! You can't, nor can anyone else. Knowledge is power. Those in power hoard as much of it as they can, under the guise of national security. No amount of brave wonderful journalism will ever, ever find out the truth if they don't want it to be known. Besides, when those who catch glimpses of the truth try to speak out, they are branded as conspiracy nuts by people like you who claim to be searching for the truth. Get real. Not everyone believes your nonsense.

Obama: "Washington will have to tighten its belt and put off spending on things we don't need. As president, I will go through the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don't need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less."

Things we don't need: social programs like single payer health care.

Things we need: Military Industrial Complex programs like an escalation of war in Afghanistan, more troops and more Predator drones.

(According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington group that tracks campaign contributions, military contractors have given 34 percent more to Obama than to his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain.)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/obam-n01.shtml

"None of this would matter except that I think the Left's embrace of conspiracy-theories has become profoundly damaging to the whole progressive movement. Conspiracy thinking produces a deep cynicism towards positive action and towards the kind of long-term organizing upon which real social and political change depends."

The crime that took place on 9/11, for many of the victim's families, has been poorly investigated, and left largely unresolved. Murders, really, where the perpetrators are never brought to justice. So much more has been done in the name of "justice" and "freedom," in regard to the attacks, but not for those directly affected. Many still have no clearer answers for their pain than on Sept 12, 2001.

If seeking justice for the living victims is "damaging to the whole progressive movement," that movement isn't worth the energy necessary to type the words.

The NY 9/11 Ballot initiative reached 30,000 signatures in Sept of this year, the threshold needed to take the initiative to the next step of approval to appear on the ballot in 2009. If passed it will establish an independent commission, with subpoena power, to investigate more fully the attacks, and the well enumerated discrepancies and contradictions in what has already been passed off as "official" inquiries. It may not garner all the answers that many people are looking for, but it may serve to shed light on what has been deliberately covered up these past seven years. Former Senator Lincoln Chaffee is firmly behind this effort, as is family member Lorie Van Auken, and Dr. William Pepper who prosecuted the successful proceedings that shed light on government complicity in the assassination of Martin Luther King.

If seeking justice is not a part of Lindorff's progessive movement, he can have his movement. It is a hollow effort, and I'll have no part of it.

personally i evaluate conspiracy theories on a case by case basis after examining the evidence. i have no problem w/ hypothesis testing and am willing to have existential conversations w/ christians who only quote a single source (re translated scores of times). yet the greatest conspiracy theory of all time, jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, is accepted by 3/4ths of all americans as the gospel truth, w/ no proof - based exclusively on conjecture.

because i evaluate conspiracies on an individual basis...

{i believe 9/11 was planned and orchestrated by non american 'terrorists'. the US govt was aware of it - i wouldn't be surprised if the 4th plane was shot down by military aircraft (it's possible deep black ops had something to do w/ instigating 9/11 - via our cia's coordinated efforts w/ other 'freedom' fighters in afghanastan) and neo-con policy wonks in DC seized the opportunity (as they previously had indicated they would do in published letters/ project for a new american century), capitalizing on the attack to maximize their profits in the energy and weapons/war economic sectors. if they had prior knowledge of the attack, they undoubtedly should be tried for treason...}

i would always be disinclined to censor or chill another person's opportunity to express their ideas in public, to dismissively disregard another hypothesis (unless it was grounded clearly on racist or anti semitic foundations).

i disagree w/ your comment...

"None of this would matter except that I think the Left's embrace of conspiracy-theories has become profoundly damaging to the whole progressive movement. Conspiracy thinking produces a deep cynicism towards positive action and towards the kind of long-term organizing upon which real social and political change depends."

many conspiracy theories are well thought out and documented. skeptics, examining other people's idea's/world views, continually enhance their critical thinking skills, while broadening the 'possibilities' of framing events around the world from new/unique perspectives - whether we agree with the critique or not. it's a pedagogical tool that can broaden our perspective and ability to examine evidence (by stepping back and drawing insight - by listening). how does this distract a person from organizing locally anymore than reading the NYT's daily distracts a person from organizing ?

galileo was a skeptic...

i don't believe there is a cabal of 12 people ruling the globe - but i also am not naive enough to ignore the fact the global elite who meet annually in davos switz do have significant influence on global policy. it's always important to qualify sources and economic influences...and to put events into contexts.

also imagine if woodward and bernstein (watergate) or sy hersch (my lai) had just accepted conventional wisdom.

a healthy dose of skepticism is positive.

although i don't spend hours haunting 9/11 truth movement websites, i don't see how their efforts hamper the will of activists who are committed to electoral politics, electoral reform people who protest or people who commit acts of civil disobedience. there are 300 million people in this country and i don't believe people investigating what they perceive as 'true' harms others.

Michel Chossudovsky's commentary about a possible 2nd 9/11 this weekend, demonstrates (to me) how hypothetically framing geopolitical event's from a more 'orwellian' perspective helps reconcile/decipher logical inconsistencies from the historical record...

'A Second 9/11": An Integral Part of US Military Doctrine'

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10767

the 1st amendment is precious... {why won't CD editors address people's concerns regarding censorship and 'framing' political discourse - what's so progressive about censoring people's thoughts/expression ?}

----------------------------

about obama,

"...restoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, demanding punishment for those in the current administration who have committed crimes, and so on."

i agree mr lindorf let's use our forensic skills and piece together all of the facts concerning all of the crimes that unfolded under this administration.

as alex cockburn noted yesterday...

'Change You Can See ..By ALEXANDER COCKBURN 10/31/08'

http://www.counterpunch.org/

"If the new Obama administration has got any sense at all, it’ll start planning a series of show trials of the ci-devant Masters of the Universe, now delightedly fingering the billions handed them by Hank Paulson and the US Congress. If they get a veto proof majority the ground work could start in the Senate, in a committee armed with subpoena power. If not, in some Partisan Commission, taking testimony around the country. Or both. This is the moment to fix in the popular mind for the next couple of generations exactly who are the malefactors of great wealth along with their intellectual courtiers. Stake out the battlefield, otherwise the enemy will stake it out for you. For sure, it would be divisive. Division and unity go arm in arm."

...peace...

Dave Lindorff hasn't appeared in CD for a long time. He's usually on Counter Punch. I think the inclusion of this particular article says more about CD than it says about Lindorff.

The CIA is still using the same stategies it used to dispell rumors that Oswald didn't kill JFK. See below; the idea that "someone would have talked" is straight out of the CIA talking points.

from CIA Instructions to Media Assets, document #1035-960, suggestions on how to manage public suspicions about JFK's assasination:

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.

Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren.

A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

get the whole document at:
http://www.sheilacasey.com/2008/11/cia-instructions-to-media-assets-document-1035-960.html

A second major problem with Lindorf is that he keeps imputing incompetence to the Bush administration. I beg to differ, however: Bush Co is not incompetent in the least. By now Lindorf should have done his homework and have cognizance of the fact that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq were planned before and independently of the events of the eleventh (1), that the events of the eleventh were the new Pear Harbor that right extremists in this country, from Brzezinski to the signatories of the Project for the New American Century, had been wishing for, and that they were a great opportunity (2), as members of the Bush cabinet have repeatedly stated in public (3), and that, consequently, as George said in March of 2002, “ I just don’t spend that much time on him [bin Laden]…I truly am not that concerned about him,” a sentiment echoed a month later by General Richard Myers when he stated that “the goal has never been to get bin Laden.”

Here is a sampling of “the vast opportunities” provided by the events of the eleventh:

i) the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, which were justified, among other things, to the citizenry by recourse to the eleventh;
ii) the new military bases which they enabled the U.S. to establish in a number of Central Asian countries (Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan), including naturally the sprawling embassy compound and several military outposts being constructed in Iraq, and the military bases already completed in Afghanistan (all along the route of the Unocal (Union Oil Company of California) oil and gas pipelines, planned way before the eleventh) (4);
iii) the complete dismantling of the socialist economic structure of Iraq;
iv) the rewriting of Iraq’s oil laws in favor of U.S. companies and, generally, western capitalism;
v) the bullying and intimidation of Iran;
vi) the Gleichschaltung of the U.S. domestic scene (completion and hardening of the conservative revolution in the works since at least the Reagan years, including the assault on abortion laws and affirmative action), which includes passage of the PATRIOT ACT (a document hundreds of pages long and drafted before the events of the eleventh), the abolition of the right of habeas corpus, and the implementation of the doctrine of the unitary executive power;
vii) the eavesdropping on the citizenry;
viii) the establishment of the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay;
ix) the contempt for international laws and conventions;
x) the justification of the practice of torture;
xi) massive increases in the military budget;
xii) the resumption of the fabrication of nuclear weapons..

In view of this spectacular bonanza, one may easily be tempted to entertain the thought that if al Qaeda did not exist, it would have to be invented, and that surely BushCo ain’t gonna waste such a gold mine.

You are wrong, Dave, Bush Co, seen in the right light -- that of the interests of a small group of very wealthy and ruthless individuals -- is a very competent organization.

Notes:

(1) Regarding Afghanistan, see the evidence supplied by Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (Owl Books, 2005), pp. 180-181 (see the quotation below in my note 4); and by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, The War on Freedom (Tree of Life Publications, 2002), pp. 55ff. and 68ff. As for Iraq, see, for example, the letter of January 1998 written by members of the Project for the New American Century Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and others, to then President Clinton, urging him to take steps aiming at “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power,” and the testimonies of Paul O’Neill, Bush’s former Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, Bush’s first National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism.

(2) Or, as Chalmers Johnson puts it in The Sorrows of Empire, cited above, “The terrorist attacks of 9/11 came as manna from heaven to an administration determined to ramp up military budgets” (p. 64). See p. 91 as well: “The terrorist incidents of 2001, much like the sinking of the battleship Maine in 1898, gave a tremendous boost to their private agenda.” And the quotation in my note 4.

(3) For a very official statement of this assessment of the events of the eleventh, see The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, section 8: “The events of September 11, 2001, fundamentally changed the context for relations between the United States and other main centers of global power, and opened vast, new opportunities.” Incidentally, this document was authored by Philip Zelikow, who later became the executive director of the 9/11 Commission.

(4) See Chalmers Johnson’s account of the whole sordid Unocal episode, ibid., pp. 176-181. In conclusion of his narration, Johnson states, p. 181: “In light of this trajectory, it would appear that the attacks of September 11 provided an opportunity for the United States to act unilaterally to remove the Taliban…”
I note here that Hamid Karzai, the U.S. appointed president of Afghanistan, had been on the payroll of Unocal. So was PNAC member Zalmay Khalilzad, whom Bush appointed to be special envoy to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001, and who became the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan in 2003.

The presumptive logical premises of the author and many of the comments simply defy reason and common sense. How foolish can you be?

More than once or twice have I and others been burned when "counting our chickens before they hatch." Such cliches may be old and wearisome but they exist nonetheless as testament to simple common sense and the greater wisdom of knowing to expect the unexpected. Only fools are simplistic enough to believe in happily ever after. And we all should know well how the best laid plans can go awry.

The very worst thing WE could do now is to let our guard down. This is true even, or perhaps especially, if Obama wins. All it MIGHT mean at this time is that WE successfully struck a blow for OUR cause. WE MIGHT have won a battle, but the war is hardly over. And even after the election itself, there is still until January till he takes office. And then there is the entire duration of his term to see what might actually unfold.

It is way too early to be patting ourselves on the back or to make any assumptions whatsoever as to the significance of his election, IF.... Or must we remind ourselves of only two short years ago and the significance of the Democratic Party victory then, which instead of being the redemptive glory we expected brought us perhaps the worst Congress in history, matched with the worst President in history. Both of which have done more to undue the American Ideal than any other nation or people could have aspired to achieve.

And as for conspiracies, Obama's election victory would dispel only one possible conspiracy - that the republicans are poised to steal yet another election. It would dispel no others whatsoever.

I used to have respect for Dave. But no much anymore.

How can "Progressives" put pressure on O'Bama if they have already surrendered unconditionally before the election? It need no conspiracy theory to predict that as soon as the elections are over the big money donors will cash in their rain check. 75% of O'Bama's campaign money came from the big donors.

Dave, Dave, whatever has happened to you?

Dave Lindord is also ponderously and very naively invested in the mythology of
Obama as universal political panacea.

Obama, however, is merely a polite, more refined, and intelligent version of politics-in-the-service-of-empire (not as overtly nasty, and foolish as McCain). Obama will serve empire and its military and industrial interests, just as McCain would (I am assuming that Obama will win the election). There will not be any difference in that respect. He will continue the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the incursions into Pakistan, and may start a war with Iran. His hands are tied in the domain of foreign policy. And there is nothing he will be able to do when the United States is no longer able to make its foreign debt payments (probably by mid 2009) and the dollar becomes essentially valueless, which may have to be replaced by a new currency, thereby wiping out most people's savings and pension funds. I invite you to imagine what people will do when that happens.

Dave Lindorf, this article of yours leaves little of the respect I had for you intact. Go to AE911truth.org and get an education on the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 by architect Richard Gage (that is to say, watch his video). After you have done that, discuss his analysis and show me in what respects it is faulty. If you make good, serious points, I am willing to reconsider the content of my first sentence. In the above article, you have not discussed the details of the 911 controversy: you have merely thrown around easy generalizations.

As for your claim that a secret cannot be kept by many people (a hackneyed, very boring point), have you ever heard, for example, of the Los Alamos atomic bomb project during World War II? Hundreds of people worked on it, and not one leak occurred. How d'ya like them apples?

gnken1

Thank you Dave. Very well put, and I agree with you on all. Lets hope that Barack Obama will be elected, and then all of us progressives have to get out and get involved like you say, Grassroots, local office etc. We have to get ready to work for our country and make it a better nation again.

The entire 9-11 red herring topic brought up by DPD Dave is an attempt to get anyone doubting the word of the government that brought us faked stories of weapons of mass destruction used to justify war, to post here in support of 9-11 conspiracies in order to discredit them as nuts and then allow the DPAs, DPDs and lesser-evilists to ridicule them instead of them ridiculing Obama for being a CORPORATE-WHORE, WALL STREET-BAILING, CHICKEN-HAWK WARMONGER.

To Dave Lindorff anyone doubting the word of the Bush Administration must be a conspiracy nut. The Bush Administration has such a great track record that their investigation of themselves should be trusted. What's that? Independent commission you say? Bullshit! It was a whitewash.

Dave writes, "The reality is that if Obama is elected president, and if Democrats end up gaining solid control of Congress, it will be critically important for progressives to organize powerfully to press this new government to do the right things—"

-utter nonsense if you can't pressure him now that he needs our votes imagine trying to pressure him once in office. Once in office Obama will be consumed with playing Republican and surrounding himself with Republicans in order to get reelected.

Bringing up 9-11 is a crude attempt to shift the topic to Obama detractors. Really, what does 9-11 have to do with Obama's campaign?

I guess Dim supporters are feeling the heat of not being able to make persuasive arguments in favor of their traitorous sellouts without us tearing those "arguments" to shreds. Nice try Dave Lindorff. Try again.

While true wild conspiracies fever many people's minds on the left and right, Lindorf has hardly proved his case. Gulf of Tonkin is accepted by him, but no mention of Operation Northwoods. envisioning an attack on the "homeland."

Regarding the official conspiracy theory of the 9/11 attacks, which he apparently wholeheartedly accepts (or maybe half-heartedly -- he does wonder why the black boxes are held by the FBI) he drags out the standard reasons some in the Bush regime could not possibly have anything to do with it: too many people would need to be involved, and incompetence. Lindorf hardly proves this as both reasons cannot themselves be proved as necessary and sufficient to prevent complicity, and from that complicity from being learned.

Strict compartmentalization, and the fact that the war in Iraq DID take place over the objections of a great many, and was based on the clever distribution of deceit and falsehood argue against these broad based reasons someone in the admin could not have been able to orchestrate the attacks.

War games taking place in the Northeast airspace could have easily facilitated confusion and a stand-down of interceptors. War games are innocent enough, not requiring a large contingent of people doing anything different than what they would normally do during such exercises. Some involved WOULD need to be complicit, but not large numbers. Most would simply need to do their jobs.

And while a better argument can be made for incompetence, incompetence in itself is no good reason. As said, the war in Iraq took place in spite of an overwhelming lack of evidence Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Indeed, it is well known the Iraq war was executed for a host of other reasons that had nothing to do with 9/11. There is a good argument to be made that the war in Afghanistan was executed based on plans and preparation taken well before 9/11, as mobilization of the US military is hardly likely to have been planned, supplied, and carried out in the six or so weeks from 9/11 to the invasion.

Lindorf may be correct to criticize far out conspiracies, and the tendency of agitated masses to indulge in them. In troubled times, truth is one of the first things to suffer. That should not diminish, though, well investigated FACTS that the official investigations pass over, or cover up, such as why the FBI holds the black boxes.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's NCSTAR 1 report, to the non-scientific, may appear a weighty, well-researched piece of work. It is weighty, so much so, only those with scientific training to critically evaluate its assumptions and conclusions have ventured to do so. Journalists, such as Lindorf, are much more apt to accept the government's conclusions because they may well be rightly unqualified to dig through the methods and the data, and come to critical conclusions for themselves. To dismiss, out of hand, those that do come to critical conclusions on the methods in the report because they themselves lack expertise to judge, is not very objective. Lindorf should withhold judgement, yet seems unable.

NIST's Information Quality Standards and the Office of Management and Budget's guidelines, which together assure integrity, quality of information, the ability for any qualified member of the public to re-analyze data and methods of agency publications, were seriously violated in the NIST NCSTAR 1 report.

In running the simulations for fire dynamics, NIST eliminated in some cases the "less severe" case parameters, and in others both the "less severe" and the "base case" because they didn't fit the conclusion that the towers would come down. In eliminating the "less severe" case because it did not meet a "key observables" requirement -- the simulation would not show aircraft debris exiting the opposite side of the building -- NIST in also admits that neither the "base case" nor the "more extreme" case met this key observable either, yet they were not eliminated. NIST used flawed logic to eliminate the "less severe" case based on this criteria because in several simulations none of the cases met that criteria.

NIST leads its readers to believe that it ran the "less severe," "base," and "more severe" test cases in each of four simulations, a total of 81 scenarios. The report however neglects to publish the results of the great majority of these anywhere in the report.

By eliminating the cases which did not result in building failure, NIST biased the results of what should have been an inquiry based on a fair analysis of the data. If the "less severe" and "base case" results did not indicate aircraft damage and fire was sufficient to cause the buildings to fail, another line of inquiry would immediately be presented that something more was involved that did cause the buildings to fail.

By eliminating this possible reading of the data, NIST biased the report, whether intentionally or not, to presume a pre-determined conclusion was the correct conclusion, aircraft damage and fire were the sole principal agents causing the buildings to fail.

NIST says "Structural models of the two aircraft-damaged buildings indicated that, in the absence of weakening by fires or other substantial insult, the buildings would have continued to stand indefinitely. The application of the fire scenarios in Cases B and D [the more severe cases for WTC 1 and 2] to the aircraft damaged towers resulted in collapse." NIST NCSTAR 1-5 p. 180

Any other result was discarded, leaving any other alternative "insult" to the buildings excluded from the inquiry.

A qualified member of the public cannot "re-analyze" the data as required by NIST's standards, OMB guidelines, and good, transparent scientific inquiry for two reasons. One, the report itself doesn't contain enough of the data to re-analyze and draw scientific conclusions; and Two, NIST refuses to discuss, debate, or release the data, parameters, and methods it used beyond what is insufficiently presented in the report.

Poor science. But also very possibly science based on political expediency.

Dave Lindorff is a DPD (Democratic Party Dupe) deluxe. Democratic Party supporters basically fall into three broad categories:

A) Lesser-evilist- Lesser-evilists see the Democrats for the sellouts they are but believe that because they are marginally better than Republicans you should vote for them. Chomski is a lesser-evilist but a highly intelligent one. Chomski says we really have ONE POLITICAL PARTY OF BIG BUSINESS AND IT HAS TWO WINGS.

-This is the most principled argument that can be made in support of Democrats, namely that Republicans are worse. The argument is still weak.

B) DPA (Democratic Party Apologist) see the sellouts but manage the mental contortions and acrabatics necessary to excuse them. For example, Obama has to vote to fund the wars because otherwise the Republicans will claim he doesn't support the troops. This line of reasoning dovetails with DPA red herring argument #8: "OBAMA IS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE A CHICKEN-HAWK, CORPORATE-WHORE, WALL STREET WARMONGER. ONCE IN OFFICE HE WILL SHOW HIS TRUE COLORS." The subtext is that the best way to defend against Republican attacks is to become one.

-This argument flies in the face of what he has said he plans to do and his record. This is one of the most unprincipled arguments around. We are to believe Obama is deceiving the public into believing he's a right winger and then once in office he's going to screw all the centrists and Republicans that believed him. This argument holds as its premise that Obama is a deciever but vote for him anyway because ends-justifies-means.

C) DPD (Democratic Party Dupe) cannot really see the Democrats as sellouts and live in an elementary world of good vs evil, black vs white, Lakers vs Celtics and the good guy Democrats vs the bad guy Republicans.

-This is the most unprincipled argument of all. To buy into this argument you must be a sap. These saps believe the Democrats are the answer. Why Democrats haven't done anything but capitulate to Republicans never occurs to them.

Dave Lindorff is a classic DPD and should be writing kindergarten books for five years olds that can easily relate to his elementary world.

The alt-911 folk have effectively discredited the peace, anti-war and social justice movements by associating their cult with them. Throw in a discredited fusion physicist and theologian "expert" on free-fall physics and you get a new paradigm religion, which like other religions, is built upon myth. Karl Rove is laughing, tearing a muscle, as the the so-called "left" in the USA bought into his planting of the 911 conspiracy theory/story to throw the the anti-war movement off focus. And, oh, we never really went to the moon, either.

Mr. Lindorff,

After rereading this article and going back and rereading some of your earlier work which I admired, I can only conclude that either:

1. You are smoking crack or

2. You have been threatened with a big stick/big carrot choice and have sold your soul.

I hope it is number one.

Nothing exists.

High level government conspiracies definitely happen. So what exactly is wrong with having a theory about a vast plot to deceive us?

From the point of view of the conspirators, plenty. They cannot succeed unless their under-handed dealings remain well out of sight. If the details of Operation Mockingbird became widely known, no one would read or watch any news from the mainstream media anymore, and their effort to control public opinion would fail.

Those in charge of the cover-ups had very good reasons for launching an all out attack on conspiracy theorists, and due to Operation Mockingbird, they are able to insert their memes into TV shows, news articles, books, movies, songs, greeting cards and comic books. Without quite realizing how it happened, the population adopts the belief desired by the conspirators: that those who suspect conspiracies are deficient human beings in every respect.

http://www.sheilacasey.com/2008/09/confessions-of-a-conspiracy-theorist.html

WTC building 7 is separated from the two towers by other buildings. #7 is supposed to have been damaged so extensively by the towers collapse to collapse itself hours later---yet there are buildings between them that survived? Building 7 is where the government had its anti-terror offices set-up. All those records destroyed...

If intelligence agents were watching the hijackers, then they clearly messed up and those records could expose the whole thing.

Memo to "I am always right":

"I am always right" was a favorite saying of Mussolini's. Birds of a feather, I guess.

And I think you got the fly metaphor wrong. It's flies like you that irresistibly home in on the dungheap of lies about 911, thinking that parroting the words of power and officialdom makes you "always right."

This article is like conspiracy nut fly paper.

Sucks in every leftie whacko conspiracy nut out of the woodwork to scream "I am not a leftie whacko conspiracy nut" while making Dave's point very well.

"that the Wall Street meltdown and subsequent bail-out are a deliberate scheme to steal the nation's assets and funnel them into Republican pockets, and that Republican operatives have the technological capability, and plan to steal the current election by manipulating the results on the electronic voting machines used by many election districts."

It's not a conspiracy "theory", Dave. It's a conspiracy, most definitely, but unfortunately it's simply the plain truth.

You're playing into the conservative trap by branding people "conspiracy theorists". These are people who see what's going on in the world and try to alert people to it. There are bad, evil things afoot, and to dismiss the warnings in such a way is wrong.

Dave Lindorff calls himself a "journalist" but is better suited to write kindergarten books. He displays MASSIVE IGNORANCE in his wholesale dismissal of "conspiracy theories" that often times prove themselves to have happened.

After carrying on with his spectacular stupidity he then amazingly says, "I am not saying that governments don't engage in treacherous conspiracies."

It bothers DPDs (Democratic Party Dupes) that we have more than two parties to choose from and and that we are not morons and understand (as Chomski stated) that we really have ONE BUSINESS PARTY WITH TWO WINGS.

What he is really saying is that it frustrates him and other DPDs that we point out the Democratic record which Dave seems to have buried his head in the sand about. Here's the record on Democrats:

1) Refuse to stop funding the war after promising to do so
2) Refuse to impeach Bush/Cheny
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers on the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war and get away with it
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Allow Guantanamo to stay open so they can torture outside US jurisdiction
11) Allow themselves to be pissed on by signing statements
12) Spearheaded bailing out Wall St. criminals without even one hearing
13) Now favor offshore drilling
14) Push for an escalation of war in Afghanistan
15) Saber rattle Pakistan, Iran and Russia
16) Admire and want to retain Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates
17)Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________. (what's next?)

After the Democrats have thoroughly betrayed us we are supposed to have "hope" in "change" and cheer them on. I read Dave Lindorff not to learn anything, but strictly for its entertainment value.

Dave, with all respect, your article is bullshit. Theories have evidence to evaluate. Stick to the professional standard of evidence rather than ad hominem and strawman insults.

Another preposterous notion in Lindorff's piece is his belief that he himself contributed (now to his great regret) to the dissemination of "conspiracy theories." Dream on, Dave! Physical reality, and the eyes in our heads that see it, don't need your limited journalistic viewpoint to confirm what is plain to anyone not wearing blinders. And the expert opinions of former pilots (see 911patriots), former US govt officials (the list is long), former CIA and MI5 operatives (Ray McGovern, Robert Baer, Annie Machon, David Shayler, among others), European political insiders (Cossiga of Italy, Von Bulow of Germany, Meacher of G.B., among others), architects and physicists surely must count for a little more than the musings of a journalist...

Dave:

Of what left do you speak? The Democrats? bwahahahahahaah. Maybe if you even had the balls and foresight to vote Nader (as you know you should've) you'd be in a position to talk.

btw, this was as pissy an article as I've ever read. What's happening to you? I sincerely hope that spitfire & incorruptible backbone of yours returns soon enough.

Oh and I sent my absentee ballot in for Nader about two weeks ago, thanks for asking.

You going to keep pandering to the Democrats, maybe you'll have a cushier position in the media soon enough.... but your cred is fading, dude.

This article was a broad-sided slap in the face if ever I read one. Keep saying maybe Obama this, maybe Democrats that, but that attitude really isn't going to do shit for us down the road.

I've long been an admirer and willing reader of Lindorff, but I must admit that he really disappointed me with this piece. It's long been an argument of leftist luminaries (Chomsky et al) that "conspiracy theories" are a pointless distraction for progressives who would better use their energies towards concrete goals such as social equity, world peace, etc., and this is actually true when the particular conspiracies being investigated are irrelevant to our immediate sociopolitical realities (I would consider the Vincent Foster case an example of this, except for the fact that it is more the hobbyhorse of the rightwing black helicopter crowd than of any progressives I know). In the case of 911, however, the event has ushered in such profound changes both in the U.S. sociopolitical reality and in the worldwide geopolitical situation that I do not think we can get past these very negative developments without a thorough, independent investigation re-examining all of the events of that day and of the time preceding and following it. Note that Lindorff in no way refutes any of the more plausible conjectures or empirical observations of the 911 truth movement, but merely appeals to some sort of winking, elbow-to-the-ribs "common sense" whereby "we sane people know better than that." Among such empirical observations I would include, just to be brief (since an exhaustive list would be mindbogglingly long), and at the risk of repeating what many have long been pointing out: 1) the utterly implausible free-fall collapse of WTC7; 2)the video evidence of workers and policemen on the ground knowing the building was coming down 3)Larry Silverstein's admission that they brought it down; 4) the BBC's inexplicable "cock-up" of announcing the building's collapse before it came down; 5) Barry Jennings's video testimony (prior to his recanting) of what he experienced in WTC7 long before it fell (to say nothing of Jennings' recent mysterious death, hushed up by the major media). Lindorff's rather lazy dismissal of these patent realities makes one wonder if he has even bothered to examine the merits of the case. For by any even broad legal standards the case has "legs", and powerful ones at that. One need merely begin by calling all of the abovementioned individuals (those still alive) to the stand and have them testify under oath. Remove the gag orders from all the first responders and let them tell their stories. Put all the other major players on the stand (Cheney, Giuliani, NORAD officials, Rumsfeld, etc.) Only thus will all the wilder speculation be put to rest. Obama may have the noblest intentions in the world (and I for one hope he does), but if he does nothing about the enormous doubts persisting in re 911, then the subculture of conspiracy theorizing will only grow. And let us not forget, incidentally, that the very term "conspiracy theory" first emerged in relation to the JFK assassination as a way of dismissing well-founded doubts about the official version of events, and that so powerful has been its sway in the popular mind (no doubt thanks to its numbing reiteration over the years in the mass media) that the "common wisdom" these days concerning the events of Nov. 22, 1963, especially in the MSM, has been a total reversion to the Warren Commission "findings" in spite of the fact the Congress itself, in the form of the Church Commission, concluded in the likelihood of the presence of other gunmen!
A couple of final notes. I believe one may assume that such sage and historically well-informed individuals as Lindorff and Chomsky have no problem believing in the existence of conspiracies throughout history in such contexts as, for example, the various power struggles for the English crown in the Middle Ages, the intrigues surrounding the Papacy and local power in Renaissance Italy (the Borgias etc.), or even seeing Putin's hand in the mysterious deaths of Russian journalists and defectors, all of which seem to me like likely scenarios. Why, then, the dogged persistence in claiming "it can't happen here and now?" Is it pollyannish optimism about the good ol' USA (unlikely in Chomsky et al) or fear of professional ostracism? And, finally, I hate to admit it, but it's not true, alas, that "the rest of the world" refutes the official story of 911. I happen to live in France, and recently a prominent French comedian (whose name escapes me at the moment) came out and admitted that he had grave doubts about the US govt's and the MSM's version of the events of that day, and he was hounded and pilloried to the point where he was actually forced to issue a public recantation and apology for what he had said. Shades of Stalinism! What we are dealing with, then, is a powerful orthodoxy, one which must be combatted at all costs, pace Lindorff, Chomsky, Cockburn et al. And it seems to me that the core of the resistance to this orthodoxy is based in the U.S., as well it should be. For only if Americans themselves force out the truth, whatever it may be (and I don't claim to know), will the rest of the world be likely to accept it.

He needs to maintain conspiracies do not exist to protect Obama from those who believe in them. Biden did say he would be tested by the same people who did 9/11.

Actually, if the Democrats enjoy the sweeping victory that is expected, then that will be a very very GOOD time for them to examine the integrity of our voting systems. They will be able to do so without the appearance of being a sore loser. This is very important stuff. Is anyone paying attention to King Lincoln v. Blackwell? The plot thickens Monday.

Please do not marginalize those of us who have concerns about this. It was Common Dreams that first made me aware of these problems.

I think most of us have some unanswered questioned about 911.
The investigation into 911 was heavily biased and tightly controlled by the White House.
Can we all agree there was a conspiracy to not perform a real investigation?
If so, aren't you curious what they were hiding?
The possible answers run from more mundane theories (i.e. liability for faulty construction of the Word Trade Center) to more challenging theories (Bush or an ally was in someway involved in the attacks).
Shouldn't the lack of a real investigation have raised some suspicions?
After all, though in 2001 it was less apparent, by now it's clear that this is not an administration with a track record of honesty or respect for human life.
Whatever they are hiding, why are some people (especially Progressives) so hostile towards those who question the record of 911 told to us by our corrupt President and corrupt Congress? Why oppose holding an independent investigation or doubting the official narrative?

Also, I don't know how many crack ba-rocks Lindorff is smoking (quite a lot judging from his fever dreams about the soon-to-be suddenly moral Democrats) but there is plenty of evidence of "multi-state election thefts via electronic fraud". Anyone need links?

"Nova" recently aired a program on the investigation into the breakup of the Columbia shuttle. The analyst who proposed the idea that a large chunk of foam that had broken off had actually damaged the front of the wing was laughed at -- until a scientific demonstration proved that that's exactly what happened.

There are two elements, usually, to conspiracy scenarios: one is the human element, the other, the scientific.

Those who constantly assert that people readily blab, and therefore conspiracies can't effectively be concealed, are wrong. Al conspirators need to do is to lay false trails, delay investigations, and kick up a little dust, and a movement will emerge that will completely obscure the truth.

The anti-conspirators usually cite Occam's Razor, which is purely a principle regarding metaphysical causality, and has absolutely NO bearing on questions of human motivation & historical causality. (There is no "simplest explanation" for ANY historical event.)

The second element is the scientific component; so many assert that this-or-that isn't scientifically possible. For years I believed that the "magic bullet theory" alone disproved the lone gunman in the Kennedy assassination . . . until a comprehensive demonstration demonstrated that the conspiracy theorists had eliminated or distorted vital elements of the actual conditions, and showed conclusively that a bullet could do the damage that the Warren Commission concluded it had done.

Vincent Bugliosi, who wants Bush prosecuted for murder, spent 20 years producing an immense tome based on the Warren Commission's report & volumes of evidence, refuting patiently the many scenarios which have long enjoyed currency but which, like the false flag/martial law/election theft theories are mutually contradictory.

The "9/11 Truth Movement" has nowhere to go because there is absolutely no way of substantiating their scenarios. The evidence is irretrievable now.

Bush & Cheney were eager to cover up the glaring fact that they were absolutly not interested in the real problem of stateless terrorism, though the Clinton administration told them, constantly, during the transition that it would be a priority & consume an incredible amount of their attention.

Besides, if they hatched the first plot, why, when the populace has been restive, have they not hatched any further operations?

.

All governments operate by conspiracy. This is how the people in power keep themselves in power, they conspire with one another and hide the facts from the public. Since the real ways that governments function are hidden from us, conspiracy theorizing is the only method we have for determining what really happened and making projections of what might happen.

In science many theorum are proved wrong, some are proved right. As far as I am concerned the 911 inside job theory has been scientifically proven by Steven Jones and many others, including eyewitnesses. Other theories that Mr. Lindorff mentions are pretty well verified also, some not so well, however, by lumping all conspiracy theories into the same debunking basket, Mr, Lindorff becomes an (unintentional?) agent for the conspirators.

Russian intellectuals under the USSR used to get truth from Pravda by reversing everything that was printed as fact. Our own media is much the same, particularly FOX. When examining a conspiracy theory critically one of the first things I do is consider the source by following links and finding out who the particular theorist works for, who writes their paychecks.

"Democrats may be weenies, but such a conflation of Republicans and Democrats is also self-defeating nonsense, as is the notion that Obama is "just another tool" of the corporate/imperialist power structure."

This one we are going to have to adopt a wait and see attitude on. The elete installed Roosevelt to avert a revolution and gear up the country for war on which they made billions. Obama may be a similar Judas Goat. Sure, he will toss us some social programs along with his lofty rhetoric. Maybe cranking up the war machine to WWII levels (including a draft) is the way he will do it while calling for "sacrifice." That's what his main men Z.B. and D.R. are all about. "Real men go to Moscow." Actually it will be, "Other men's sons go to Moscow."

I will reserve judgement on the "just another tool" theory until I see if Obama cranks up the Selective Service system again. If he does it becomes a proven fact, theory no longer.

Nothing exists.

I agree with Lindorff's three closing paragraphs, enough anyway, but have a question or two about the following one.

"Maybe when this election goes right and isn't stolen, making Obama the president, and debunking the vote-theft fear-mongers, and when Obama goes on to be inaugurated in January, without being blocked by a military coup, these paranoid conspiracy theories will fade away and people on the Left will start working to make change happen instead of imagining reasons why it can't or just moaning that "they" are going to destroy us all."

Which conspiracy theorists, other than in some articles I've seen posted here at CD, claim that vote-theft is happening, and I mean the electronic, voting machine kind? I believe people are considerably right to worry given that there was voting machine thievery in 2004, and possibly some in 2006, or there was according to what I've read anyway; and I think to recall some of that is from respectable FreePress.org.

And couldn't disenfranchisement of voter rights also be consider a sort of vote theft? I don't see why not, because while the method clearly differs from voting machine theft, it still can contribute to stealing the election. That is why they conduct such disenfranchisements in fraudulent and despotic ways, I believe; to try to steal the election away from what the majority of voters select.

I still believe that Obama will get the election; I've been saying it's a virtual certainty and use that phrasing instead of simply 'a certainty', because Nov. 4th hasn't arrived yet, and even once it does, if Obama loses, then there could, potentially, be a vote recount or verification performed; if this isn't obstructed again as it was in 2000. The latter isn't a conspiracy theory; from what I've gathered, it and the stealing or hijacking of that election is fact.

As for whether or not martial law will be established, I won't theorize on this; will only say that according to what I've read, the Bush administration has established the or a "legal" framework that'd make it all the easier to establish martial law, if they want to resort to doing that and get away with it. And if that is true, then they could establish martial law following Nov. 4th, but before they're out of office in January, which'd permit (I believe) them to postpone the change in presidency in January.

Whether or not they'll do that is not something I'll say anything more about, and I'm not going to worry about it; preferring to just "wait and see", while hoping it doesn't happen. We do need to be rid of the Bush-Cheney cabal, and must hope that a presidential administration with Obama as front-stage figurehead will [listen] to the public more than to his national and foreign policy teams of "advisers" or managers. The latter is seeming more likely than only having advisers; or else a sort of combination of both.

"Chief among the leftist conspiracy theories are that the Bush/Cheney administration was behind the 9-11 attacks, that the current administration has plans to cancel or annul the November 4 election and institute martial law, that there are plans for a "false flag" attack on American forces which will be used to justify an all-out war against Iran,"

Even with all the arguments in favor of the 9/11 conspiracy, I always doubted that they were smart enough to have done it.

But now judging by the fact that the neocons have achieved everything they wanted, I think maybe they were.

Dave Lindorff:
You will never change my certainty that my own government:
Murdered President Kennedy.
Lied to invade Vietnam.
Lied to invade Iraq.
Lied to invade Afghanistan,
and yes, orchestrated 9/11 and lied about it.

What you call conspiracy theories has nothing to do with right or left. It is fact. By writing articles like this you are part of a conspiracy to keep the population ignorant of the evil of the American government. But it won't work. I know you're a liar, and so do plenty of other people.

I see no evidence that an Obama presidency will change the mode of operation of the American government. The lies and the false flag operations will continue. It is the very core of our culture. It is what America is all about. And, it will be the very last thing that gets snuffed out when America is eventually destroyed by the rest of the world as a consequence of its criminal behavior.

I'm looking for a 10:59 post by Mike Corbell which was on a second page and a listing of 101 posts. I thought it was the best post I'd read on this thread and when I tried to post a reply, a warning came up saying that I was replying to a post which didn't exist. The post was fairly lengthy, so maybe it was editted out--but the post just suddenly disappeared and I think so did 10 other posts. The total was 101 in number and then dropped to 90. Is this a technical glitch, or maybe I'm hallucinating.

The 9-11 Truth Movement will continue to grow and gather force until the guilty are ascertained and punished, where-ever the chips may land.
No-one has yet been charged with master-minding this crime, not OBL or any-one else.
The Crime of the Century is still an open , unsolved case.
Do you really think people are going to stop giving a damn?

- What was the explosive force that allowed the tops of each of the three WTC towers to travel straight down at free-fall speed directly through the path of greatest resistance ? What explosive force removed that resistance ?

- Why did the mainstream media refuse to mention or show pictures of WTC7 until the recent BBC 'debunking' hit piece, 7 years after the event ?

- How did the BBC manage to report the collapse of WTC7 25 minutes ahead of time, especially considering that it was supposedly a completely unexpected freak occurrence, involving a heretofore unobserved phenomenon dubbed "Thermal Expansion" (according to the recent NIST whitewash). What was their source ?

But hey, who's counting.
It could never be the case that some self-important pinheads were just so dumb or asleep at the switch that they would let something like that just slide by, right ?
Right ?

Most of the "conspiracy theories" that you mentioned, unless you are Rush Limbaugh, aren't created by "leftist". Please understand there are lots of committed leftist liberals who are always concerned about social and economic issues but shouldn't be classified along with the reactionaries who come to the forefront during election times. While those you describe above are much like their counterparts supporting the Republican political candidates, they are not "leftists" in the truest sense.

Charlie Jackson
Texans for Peace
http://www.texansforpeace.org

This artical only talks about the big box, generic, smoke screen-decoy type conspiracies. Those conspiracies that hint at the truth but dodge the heart of the matter... leaving only empty hand wringing and a loss of words.

Let's talk about the real conspiracies that are being avoided everytime the smoke screen conspiracies are used to pre-conclude the debate.

Let's talk about why we invaded Afghanistan when the 19 hijackers where clearly from Saudi Arabia.

Let's talk about Bush's missile defense program headed for Poland, Czech, Britian, and Alaska. Just how does one shoot down an Iranian missile from those locations?

Let's talk about the neocons long established hatred of communism in relation to the stated goals of the "Project for the New American Century". Is the War on Terror a rhetorical smoke screen intended to obfusicate the neocons real intentions, which are; to surround and put a stranglehold on old communist enemies?

Let's talk about the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet satellite countries- Georgia, Latvia, and Ukrain. Does this expansion of NATO point towards the neocon's long established hatred of communism? Is this their driving policy making motive?

Let's talk about War for Oil... since Bush himself has stated oil does indeed play a part. Do the neocons envision future conflicts with Russia and China? Do the neocons hope to deny Russia and China of Middle Eastern oil by attacking those oil supplies pre-emptively?

Let's talk about the new audio evidence that irrefutably puts a second gunman at the RFK assassination.

And let's talk about about the photographs taken in the lobby at the Ambassador Hotel of the two CIA agents (Bay of Pigs group) who where supposed to be down in the Florida Keys that day- not Los Angeles. Let's talk about one of those agents who in the 1960's stated to various witness his strong hatred of the Kennedy's... and ask the question just exactly what was he doing at RFK's speech that day?

Let's talk about papa Bush and his lengthy time as the Director of the CIA.

Let's talk about the president of National Public Radio- who was formerly the Director of all international CIA propaganda radio broadcasts including Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Cuba, Radio Free Afghanistan, Radio Free Iraq, etc. Let's ask the question- is the government actively propagandizing the American public illegally via public radio, as well as the main stream media?

Let's ask the question, in the three weeks leading up to the Spring 2003 invasion of Iraq, why did Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting find that out of 400 news stories aired across all media channels during that period, 397 were pro-war and only 3 anti-war?

Let's talk about the Bush families long lost Cuban sugar plantations which Castro nationalized. Did their anger have any influence on the Bay of Pigs operation? Did the failure of the Bay of Pigs (and failed reclaiming of the Bush sugar investments) somehow connect with the events surrounding JFK assassination?

Let's talk about why no one is sitting in jail for the theft of the 2004 election. Let's talk about why Michael Connell, Karl Roves computer tech guru, why Michael first routed the Ohio election return data to his Chattanooga Tennessee basement- before sending it on to the Ohio Secretary of State.

Let's talk about what we don't talk about- the real conspiracies.

The reality is that if Obama is elected president

"If"? He has a huge lead in the polls. Why do you say, "if"? How could he possibly not win this thing?

and if Democrats end up gaining solid control of Congress

Again with the "if". How could they not gain solid control of Congress?

I'm getting quite weary of hearing the CD pontificators label Barak Obama just another tool of corporatist / militarist forces when the evidence is not there. Who would argue that such a possibility exists based on the evidence of the votes he's cast, the positions he's espoused, the hundreds of millions he's amassed for his campaign from the "usual suspects"? Nevertheless, none of this necessarily precludes the possibility that he's actually a progressive at heart, someone who cares about the interests of the masses of people in the country and around the world (and the future of the planet) above all else. Assuming that the latter could be true, progressives must in good conscience be prepared to work with him in forging a brighter future. Let's look at the bright side for once. Maybe McCain and Palin are right. Maybe he does have a secret agenda to "spread the wealth" and liberate the oppressed peoples of the earth. Can you prove it's not so? Only time will tell. If he is on our side, he has put himself in the perfect position to advance our causes, and with little help from us. But never forget, in order to remain in that position for a full eight years, his administration cannot alienate the opposing forces immediately and all across the board. Priorities must be set. Long term protection of the planet and environment must trump all else.