Subj: Newsletter #27
Date: 13/01/2003 09:28:44 GMT Standard Time
From:  dave@davesweb.cnchost.com
To:  dave@davesweb.cnchost.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)



Greetings from the Center for an Informed America
( http://davesweb.cnchost.com/). Please forward this newsletter widely.
If this was forwarded to you and you would like to receive future
mailings, e-mail (mailto: dave@davesweb.cnchost.com) a request to be
added to this mailing list.

NEWSLETTER #27
January 12, 2003
Special 'Conspiracy Theory' Edition
 http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr27.html

"My name is Dave, and I am a conspiracy theorist."

There. I did it. I finally took the first step on the long road to
recovery. And it feels good. It will feel even better when I complete
the program, at which time I will be able to (or so I'm told) read the
morning newspaper and watch the evening news secure in the knowledge
that I am being told the unvarnished truth. I will even, if I'm one of
the lucky ones, be able to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and
marvel at their intellectually rigorous arguments.

Although I haven't yet been filled in on all the details of the program,
I'm pretty sure that it involves the consumption of mass quantities of
Prozac.

Which reminds me ... I have great news to report this week! The FDA has
apparently approved Prozac for use on children as young as seven. Some
talking-head on the evening news claimed that millions of depressed kids
could benefit from this decision. But are there really millions of
depressed kids out there in the 'land of the free'? And if so, then why
are there millions of depressed kids out there?

What am I talking about? Who cares why they're depressed? Just drug
them! Who cares if they're depressed? Drug them all! I foresee Toddler
Prozac on the horizon. And then Infant Prozac, possibly to remedy Crying
Baby Syndrome: "Does your newborn suffer from Crying Baby Syndrome?
Symptoms include crying when hungry, wet, tired, or neglected. Talk to
your doctor about new Infant Prozac ..."

And then ... the final frontier ... Pre-Natal Prozac: "Hello. Thank you
for calling Clonaid. How may I help you? ... Yes, certainly we can
create a clone for you. Would you like that with or without Prozac? ...
Most people prefer the Prozac model. They're much easier to train."

Ooops ... sorry ... that's not really what I want to talk about this
week. I just happened to catch the Prozac story on the news and, next
thing you know, I was off on a rant. That happens sometimes.

I also will not be talking about incoming Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist (who, to give credit where credit is due, sports a somewhat more
life-like rug than his predecessor) and his Dahmeresque habit of
adopting cats from animal shelters to stock his home dissection lab.

I think I'll also pass on commenting on Rumsfeld's recent impersonation
of a schoolyard bully: "I'll take on both Saddam and Kim Jong at the
same time! I'll kick both their asses with one hand tied behind my back!
Let me at 'em ... huh? ... what's that? ... you say we didn't actually
beat North Korea the first time around? When we were only fighting one
war at a time? Oh. Well, never mind then."

I'm also not going to comment on Bush's preposterous habit of posing as
a good-old-boy rancher, or on various other members of the Bush clan
slumming with the commoners aboard a Disney cruise ship. Has anyone
considered, by the way, that a cruise ship, with a captive, physically
isolated population, would be an ideal place to conduct biowarfare
experiments -- with, for example, something like the "Norwalk Virus"?
Just wondering ...

But forget about all of that. What I really want to talk about are
conspiracy theories. As I have whined about repeatedly in these
newsletters, conspiracy theory bashing is quite fashionable these days.
According to the anti-conspiracists, conspiracy theories are silly,
paranoid, unproven, counter-productive, irrational, simplistic, and just
plain loony.

But what exactly is a 'conspiracy theory'? How do we determine if any
given theory is a 'conspiracy theory'? Because everyone, after all, has
only a theoretical view of how the world we all live in really
functions.

Conservatives have a theory, as do liberals. Neo-conservatives have a
different theory than do 'old school' conservatives. Republicans
subscribe to one theory, while Democrats subscribe to another.
Libertarians have a theory, as do Greens and Independents. Socialists
have one theory, and capitalists have quite another. Communists, white
supremacists, anarchists, skinheads -- they all have theories. Catholics
have a different theory than do Protestants. Jews have their own theory,
as do Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, Atheists, Mormons, Episcopalians,
Baptists, Scientologists, Fundamentalist Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses
and Agnostics.

There are as many theories out there as there are people to formulate
them. Everyone, in the final analysis, has their own personal theories
that explain the world as they perceive it to be, and through which they
filter incoming information about significant national and world events.

As far as I know, none of these theories has ever been proven. None of
them can legitimately claim to be the objective truth, because none of
us can say with 100% certainty where the truth lies. We all have only
our own personal theories, based on our own life experiences and on how
the world has been presented to us by family, friends, politicians,
educators, clergy, and the all-powerful media.

So what is it that distinguishes a 'conspiracy theory' from any other
theory? Is it that the theory posits that two or more actors have worked
together, usually secretively, to achieve a common goal? That, after
all, is all that a 'conspiracy' really is. Or is it that the theory is
unproven?

Actually, neither of those factors are unique to what are labeled
'conspiracy theories.'

A bunch of Islamic extremists secretly plotted and carried out the
attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon? Saddam Hussein and others are
colluding to hide Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction'? Saddam and
others secretly conspired to hatch an assassination plot against Poppy
Bush? Those are certainly all conspiracy theories, if a conspiracy
theory is simply a theory that postulates that there was some conspiring
going on.

And what of the theories advanced by conspiracy-bashing lefties? The
U.S. is going into Iraq for the oil, not out of concern for alleged
weapons of mass destruction? The Bush regime has cynically exploited the
September 11 tragedy to advance an exceedingly reactionary agenda? The
September 11 attacks were retaliation for the genocidal sanctions on
Iraq and the deplorable treatment of the Palestinians by Israel?
Conspiracy theories, one and all.

Readily apparent to just about anyone with measurable brain-wave
activity is that conspiracies do exist -- that actors do work together,
frequently secretively and often illegally, to achieve an outcome that
is mutually beneficial. Even the mainstream media and political
establishment recognize that fact; they just usually claim that it is
those other guys - such as the evil-doing terrorists, or, before them,
the dreaded Communists - who are doing the conspiring -- and only on
rare occasions the fine group of honest statesmen assembled in
Washington.

Right-wing media voices will sometimes acknowledge conspiratorial
behavior involving 'Democrats' (i.e. Whitewater, Travelgate, etc.),
while what passes for voices of the 'left' will admit to conspiratorial
behavior by 'Republicans' (i.e. Iran/Contra, Watergate, etc.).

So the 'conspiracy theory' label obviously has nothing to do with
whether or not the theory posits that there was any conspiring going on.
The media never demeans their own or the government's fairy tales by
tarring them with the 'conspiracy theory' label, no matter how
conspiratorial in nature those fables are.

And the 'conspiracy theory' label also has nothing to do with whether or
not the theory has been proven. Rarely is any compelling proof of one of
Washington's far-fetched theories ever offered, and yet these theories
are presented not as conspiracy theories, but as the gospel truth.

It has never been proven that Osama bin Laden masterminded the September
11 attacks. It has never been proven that the simultaneous hijacking of
four commercial airliners was accomplished by nineteen Islamic
fundamentalists wielding box-cutters. It has never been proven that the
purported pilots had the training or the ability to perform complex
aeronautic maneuvers in unwieldy passenger jets. It has never been
proven that it was a passenger jet that struck the Pentagon. It has
never been proven that the total collapse of the Twin Towers was due
solely to the airplane crashes and resulting fires. It has never been
proven that the failure to act on numerous warnings of the coming
attacks was due simply to bureaucratic incompetence. It has never been
proven that there is any innocent explanation for the stand-down of U.S.
air defenses on that day. It has never been proven or revealed who
exactly it was that placed heavy bets on Wall Street that United
Airlines and American Airlines stocks were about to take a dump. It has
never been proven that there is a perfectly benign explanation for why
the commander-in-chief of U.S. armed forces chose to continue reading
with schoolchildren well after live television coverage had informed the
entire world that the U.S. was under attack. It has never been proven
that there is any precedent for the actions taken by the Secret Service,
who - tasked with protecting the president at all costs - allowed him to
continue reading with schoolchildren at a known location that had been
announced by the media in advance and that was entirely vulnerable to
attack. It has never been proven that Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan
at any time during the (continuing) assault on that country. It has
never been proven that Osama bin Laden is estranged from his family,
which, of course, has longtime financial ties to the Bush family.

In fact, there are precious few, if any, aspects of the official story
that have ever been, or will ever be, proven. It is just another theory
that posits a conspiracy among certain individuals to commit horrendous
crimes -- a conspiracy theory, by any reasonable interpretation.

But it, of course, isn't labeled a conspiracy theory. The media reserves
that label for those theories that pose a serious challenge to the
status quo -- although those theories aren't necessarily any more
theoretical nor any less documentable than the government's theories,
and they don't necessarily place any more emphasis on actors conspiring
to achieve a common goal.

So what exactly is a conspiracy theory? It is simply a theory put forth
that is so at odds with our own theories that it poses a fundamental
challenge to how we perceive the world. Everyone, in other words, has
their own definition of what a conspiracy theory is; it all depends on
where your own views fall on the ideological spectrum.

To many right-wingers, anyone whose views fall too far to the left is a
conspiracy theorist -- including people like David Corn, Marc Cooper,
Matthew Rothschild, Norman Solomon and Michael Albert, who have been at
the forefront of conspiracy theory bashing, even as large swaths of
America look upon them as conspiracy theorists. Writers such as these
(and others, some of whom should know better) seek to portray themselves
as being somehow 'above' the conspiracy fray, simply because they are
advancing a different conspiracy theory than are those whom they cast
aspersions on.

One man's 'conspiracy theorist,' alas, is another man's investigative
journalist. There is no hard and fast dividing line that separates a
conspiracy theory from a - for lack of a better term - non-conspiracy
theory. That line is different for everyone, and is subject to change
over the course of a person's life as attitudes and opinions change.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is, therefore, an entirely arbitrary and
meaningless label. I have corresponded with people who eschew the sorts
of political theories found in my writings as the ravings of a crazed
conspiracy theorist, but who steadfastly maintain that UFOs routinely
sweep through their fields at night because their alien pilots have an
insatiable appetite for cattle rectums.

So who is the conspiracy theorist? The truth is that neither of us are.
There are no conspiracy theories; there are only theories. Not all
theories though are created equal. Some are decidedly better than
others. The question then is how we separate the good theories from the
bad ones -- for that is the only relevant classification of theories.

There are two basic criteria that a good theory must meet. First, the
theory must reasonably explain as much of the available evidence as
possible, and it must do so by answering more questions than it raises.
Washington's theories, of course, rarely measure up in this regard,
which is why official theories are - as a general rule - very bad
theories.

The second criteria for a good theory is that it provide some historical
context, and not treat the event under consideration as though it had
occurred in a vacuum. This is, alas, a major shortcoming with many
'conspiracy theories': they fail to take into account that every
significant occurrence is not a separate and unique 'conspiracy' for
which blame can be assigned to specific individuals, but is a small
piece in a much larger puzzle -- a puzzle in which the problems run far
too deep to be remedied by removing a few bad apples.

Some 9-11 skeptics, for example, seem to think that everything was fine
and dandy in this country until evil George W came along, stole the
election, and then proceeded to plunge the nation headlong into overt
fascism. This is, alas, a dangerous delusion.

This is not, contrary to what some visitors seem to think, a "9-11
Skeptics" site or a "September 11 Conspiracy" site. This is a site that
attempts to present a comprehensive look at this bizarre world of ours
-- sometimes by focusing on individual events in an effort to convey
patterns, and sometimes by trying to stand back to take in the 'big
picture.'

The events of September 11 have, of course, received a considerable
amount of attention -- as they should, given their significance in
advancing a specific agenda. But the attacks on the WTC were really just
an extreme example of the types of provocations that have long been used
to advance that agenda.

The point here is that the September 11 attacks, and everything that has
followed in their wake, can never be properly understood if viewed as
historical aberrations. They can only be understood within the framework
of a theory that takes into account that where we are now is where we
were headed long before Team Bush took the reins, and long before any
airplanes slammed into the World Trade Center.

So what theories have we been offered to explain the events of that day?

The most popular theory, at least among Americans, is the one offered by
the Washington gang -- and it is, I must say, one that would have been
met with riotous laughter and ridicule had it first been offered up by a
'conspiracy theorist.' It goes something like this: a loosely-knit gang
of Islamic fundamentalists, living in caves and brimming with hatred of
"our freedom" and "our democracy," secretly put together an elaborate
plan, presumably sketching most of it out with sticks in the dirt,
whereby nineteen guys armed with toothbrushes and razor blades would
board four different commercial airline flights, commandeer them,
radically alter their flight paths so that they would be aimed towards
the East Coast's two most densely-packed and politically and
economically significant targets, and then fly them masterfully into the
World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, unimpeded by the fact that
the country under attack has the most sophisticated air force and air
defense system in the world, and spends more on 'defense' than the rest
of the world combined.

The plotters apparently knew that everyone would be caught completely
off guard by the assault, due to the fact that probably lass than a
dozen countries had warned of the coming attacks, as had various agents
of our own government, and because everyone knows that the Pentagon,
even when on the highest state of alert, as it would be after both WTC
towers had been attacked, is a sitting duck that is completely incapable
of defending itself, because no one ever thought of allotting any of
those hundreds of billions of dollars in 'defense' money that we spend
every year to designing any sort of defenses for the Defense Department
itself.

In a major breach of terrorist etiquette, the terrorist group fingered
for the attacks declined to take credit. But not to worry. We had
evidence. And it was good evidence too. It wasn't manufactured and/or
planted evidence, or anything of that nature. So don't go thinking that
it was.

Take, for example, hijacker/pilot Mohammad Atta's passport -- intact and
deposited like a calling card atop a literal mountain of debris, as
though it had hung in suspended animation for an hour or so - while the
building burned and then imploded - before settling down atop the
crumbled remains. That's solid evidence.

And those flight manuals and copies of the Koran left behind in the
rental car? You can hardly argue with evidence like that. And those
Osama bin Laden videotapes? Why, it's clearly an open-and-shut case.

Speaking of the bin Laden tapes, by the way, the one I want to see goes
something like this:
Osama speaking to assembled followers: "We're the number 1 terrorist
organization in the world ... (loud applause) ... We've masterminded
every significant act of terrorism around the world for years now ...
(more loud applause) ... We receive countless millions of dollars in
funding ... (applause) ... Can't we get a decent videocamera around
here? ... (silence) ... Look at these tapes! Have you seen these? I'm
grainy, I'm out of focus, the sound quality is horrible. In this one I'm
thin, in this one I'm heavy. And where are my close-ups? Can someone get
my agent on the phone?"

There are other theories out there to explain what happened on September
11. Lots of other theories. These can be roughly separated into six
categories: "Incompetence" theories; "Let It Happen, But Didn't Realize
What the Extent of the Damage Would Be" theories; "Did Know and Still
Let It Happen" theories; "Aided and Abetted" theories; "Made It Happen"
theories; and "Other Actors" theories.

"Incompetence" theories accept most of the official story as fact, but
question whether the attacks could have been prevented had incompetence
and bureaucratic snafus not prevented credible tips from being acted
upon. If the lack of any defense measures taken once the attacks were in
progress is addressed at all by such theories, it is attributed to
incompetence as well. In fact, incompetence is pretty much of an
all-purpose answer for any aspect of the official story that doesn't add
up.

Incompetence theories are an age-old form of disinformation. They are
the first line of defense for 'the powers that be.' It's always better
to be perceived as incompetent than as a ruthless criminal of the worst
kind. And incompetence, of course, can always be remedied by pouring
more money into the military and intelligence services, and by vastly
expanding their reach and power.

But incompetence theories are just one form of disinformation. They are
just one level of deceit among many that surround an event of the
magnitude of September 11.

What many people fail to take into consideration is that our fearless
leaders know that there will always be a certain percentage of the
population that refuses to accept the official story -- no matter how
often, or by how many voices of authority, that story is told. And they
also know that there will always be those who will make sincere efforts
to provide skeptics with alternative explanations.

That is why our illustrious leaders, in their infinite wisdom, long ago
decided that the best thing for them to do would be to make sure that
they were the ones providing the skeptics in the crowd with alternative
explanations. It is Big Brother's way of saying: "You don't like the
official story? Then try this on for size."

Most of these alternative explanations consist of a mixture of "limited
hang-outs" and red herrings. The limited hang-outs are tantalizing bits
and pieces of information that were omitted from the official story, and
that are revealed by the fake dissidents to gain the trust of the
reader. And the red herrings are there to confuse and misdirect the
reader after gaining that trust.

The sad reality is that the overwhelming majority of dissenting voices
in this country are part of what could be called "the controlled
dissent." For the only way to really control public opinion, and to
control a population, while still maintaining the illusion of tolerating
varying points of view, is by controlling all of those points of view.

It is observations such as that, by the way, that so endear me to the
rest of the 'progressive' community.

I find it rather interesting that any number of allegedly dissident
writers will readily acknowledge that the CIA (and various other
intelligence entities) have worked relentlessly for decades, spending
vast sums of money, for the express purpose of placing assets in
strategic positions within the media. But if someone points out how
those efforts have been manifest in the real world, he or she is
immediately attacked and/or ostracized by the majority of 'dissident'
writers.

I guess we are supposed to believe that while such efforts have
undeniably been made, they have met with nothing but failure -- due, no
doubt, to 'incompetence.'

Anyway, the point that I started to make is that there are varying
levels of disinformation floating around in various avenues of the
media, with something to please almost everyone -- no matter how far off
the beaten path you may choose to venture in search of answers. But here
I have digressed from the previous discussion of the various theories
advanced to explain September 11.

"Other Actors" theories are another time-honored method of employing
disinformation. They work something like this: acknowledge that the
official story is a cover, acknowledge that the attacks weren't likely
planned and executed by some shadowy Islamic network, but point the
finger at someone, anyone, other than our own elected (and appointed)
leaders.

The most frequently fingered suspect is, of course, a favorite
whipping-boy of conspiracy theorists far and wide: Israel. And it must
be granted that there are a few clues scattered along the evidence trail
pointing in that direction -- such as the so-called 'Israeli art student
spy ring.'

I believe, however, that such clues were purposefully left behind
precisely to misdirect the 'conspiracy' crowd -- to encourage fingers to
be pointed towards Israel, rather than towards Washington. These 'clues'
are, in other words, deliberately planted disinformation intended to
create a false evidence trail. More obvious as disinformation are the
theories that attempt to point the finger at, rather preposterously,
China.

Some "Other Actors" theories posit that it was a 'rogue' element within
our own government that was responsible for the attacks. Some even argue
that the attacks were essentially a coup attempt directed against the
current administration -- an attempt that apparently failed rather
miserably since the attacks rather predictably allowed the current
officeholders to assume unprecedented power.

These 'bad apples' theories are fatally flawed, as previously indicated,
by a failure to recognize that just as one demagogic leader - whether
named George or Adolf - does not radically alter the course of history,
neither does some 'rogue' group operating outside the bounds of official
Washington.

The complicity of all of Washington's institutions is required to pull
off something of the magnitude of the September 11 attacks. The
complicity of both political parties is required to ensure that there
will be 'bipartisan' agreement as to what happened and what the response
should be. A complicit Congress is required to unquestioningly accept
the administration's conclusions, and to stonewall any and all attempts
at a meaningful investigation. A complicit court system is required to
pretend not to notice the blatantly unconstitutional nature of much of
the post-September 11 legislation that has been passed. A complicit
mainstream media apparatus is required to ensure that no facts that
directly challenge the administration's positions make it into print,
and to ensure that the administration's war plans and attacks on civil
liberties will be given the proper spin. A complicit 'alternative' media
is required to ensure that distrust and unease within certain segments
of society will be allayed by the most non-threatening of 'dissident'
voices (with events of the significance of September 11, however, it's
usually necessary to call in the big guns -- those pillars of the
'progressive' community that are so revered that few dare question their
wisdom; these are the voices that will, on most occasions, speak freely
and accurately about the lies and criminality of the U.S. government,
establishing unassailable credentials by doing so, but when called upon
to address the issue of the Kennedy assassination, will answer that
"Oswald did it," or when called upon to address the September 11
attacks, will respond that "Osama did it").

"Let It Happen" theories go much further than "Incompetence" theories,
by positing (or, to be more accurate, acknowledging) that the
administration did indeed have enough intelligence to know of the coming
attacks, but let the plans proceed so that the attacks could be crassly
exploited to advance an agenda -- an agenda usually said to be
oil-driven.

Most "Let It Happen" theories are tempered through the addition of
claims that, while the Bush gang knew in advance that an attack was
coming, they did not foresee the magnitude of the damage. This is,
apparently, supposed to make the criminality of the administration more
palatable to readers: "Well, yes, the actions of the administration were
criminal, murderous, even treasonous, but they really only thought they
were putting hundreds at risk, not thousands. So let's not be too hard
on them."

Going further yet are the "Aiding and Abetting" theories, which claim
that not only did the administration know the attacks were coming, they
actively worked to assure that the plans would succeed. The degree to
which U.S. agents were complicit in the planning and execution, and the
level of involvement within the U.S. government, varies within this
classification of theories -- which also includes theories that the
administration deliberately provoked the attacks.

The last category of theories is the "Made It Happen" theories, which
hypothesize that the attacks were an entirely self-inflicted wound --
conceived, planned and executed by U.S. assets working at various levels
behind the scenes. In other words, they were fully orchestrated affairs,
with thoroughly scripted responses and repercussions.

So which of these theories is most consistent with historical patterns?
And which of them best explains the available evidence? And which of
them takes into account that everything that has transpired since
September 11 is a continuation of forces and undercurrents that were in
existence long before George Bush stepped up to the plate?

If we look at the alleged triggers for every major war that the U.S.
embarked upon in the century prior to September 11, it becomes quite
clear that every one of them was either staged or provoked to justify
America's entry into a war that had nothing to do with the alleged
triggering event: the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in February of 1898,
the sinking of the Lusitania in May of 1915 (which, by the way, did not
'trigger' America's entry into World War I, but was retroactively cited
as justification when the U.S. went to war two years after the incident
occurred), the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1942, the provoked
attack on South Korea in June of 1950, and the fictional attack on the
U.S.S. Maddox in August of 1964.

If viewed as a trigger for war, which the September 11 attacks certainly
were, then it can be safely concluded that if they were in fact
unprovoked, surprise attacks perpetrated by foreign actors, then they
clearly represented a break from a deeply ingrained historical pattern.

But the attacks were clearly much more than just a trigger for war. They
were also a trigger for a vastly accelerated attack on civil rights,
privacy rights, and due process rights. They were, in other words, a
trigger for war on the home front.

As such, they are also in a line of succession with other events that
provided the pretext for the passing of Draconian
anti-terrorism/anti-crime bills, such as the first attack on the World
Trade Center, the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, and the
mass murder at Columbine High School.

Each of those crime scenes, dare I say, bore the fingerprints of actors
other than, or in addition to, those who officially took the fall. As
with September 11, it is virtually impossible to say with certainty what
exactly transpired on any of those fateful days, but there is certainly
no shortage of evidence that challenges the official stories.

Psycho-dramas played out in the theater of our collective conscious?
Stage-managed acts in the long-running production of The Politics of
Fear? I tend to think that they were, but then again, as we all know,
I'm a recovering conspiracy theorist -- which means that I have all
kinds of crazy thoughts.

I believe, for example, that the Nazi Party torched their own Reichstag.
Crazier yet, I believe that one of the families that helped finance the
assent to power of that very same Nazi Party is the family that now
occupies the White House. And I believe (and this is really crazy) that
history repeats itself when its lessons have been misrepresented and
misunderstood.

There are some things that I don't believe, however. I don't believe in
the old adage that "it can't happen here." And I don't believe that if
we still have football on Sundays and a choice between "Friends" and
"Survivor" on Thursdays, then nothing has really changed in the last two
years. And I don't believe that I've really managed to maintain much of
a focus in this newsletter.

Have you noticed that? I just seem to keep rambling off in different
directions. Why is that? Have you been wondering exactly where it is
that I am headed with this? Strangely enough, I have too. And to be
honest, I'm not really sure yet.

But we've come much too far to turn back now. We have little choice but
to ride this wave out and see where it takes us.
(to be continued ...)

(Permission is hereby granted for this material to be widely distributed
and reposted, provided that the content is not altered in any way.)