LOL! Don't let the wild-eyed radicals scare you...
I find it's actually valuable to read the radicals on all ends of the spectrum, even if only a small portion of their information is correct. What's interesting is to see the resonance of even the incorrect facts, which can often point to where such incorrect facts come from, and why.
Otherwise, it's easy to get lulled into the Time/CNN pipeline of propaganda, which I've learned is basically gov't information, and get a nasty surprise down the road.
Someone always writes for a reason. As JPM famously said - there are two reasons:"A good reason, and the real reason", lol!
You're attempting to reach conclusions, rather than study the record for inconsistencies.
All I'm saying is we don't know everything, and that what we think we "know" obviously could be quite wrong.
Facts are stubborn things -- dismissing categories of thought is dangerous, anyone interested in what the future holds is generally better off calling for disclosure and discussion, than such vague statements and irrelevant assumptions.
I.e., it's hard to avoid seeing that unusually large efforts are being made to prevent the public's access to public information, i.e., the last 20 years' pres. papers, all of the 9/11 investigation, etc etc
In the Nixon era it was clear that many found it hard to believe he was a "crook", especially when he denied it publicly, and tried to stonewall. There's a natural tendency to dismiss anything uncomfortable.
Usual ways to dismiss facts :
(a)"conspiracy theories", if any two or more people are suspected of conflicts of interest, etc., bad things happen, and they profit, it's just a "conspiracy theory" and therefore not worth investigating or
(b)"coincidence theories", where things "just happen, darn it"
(c) UFO cultist, associate the messenger with something like a UFO tin-hat cult
(d) sexual perversion, like recently an Iraq-war critic named Ritter was announced by the media without corroboration from legal sources, to be a pedophile, which was then used to discredit any serious facts he may claim to be derrogatory to the administration.
The validity of any theory is the power of prediction. Like selecting stocks with less than perfect information, regardless of which rationale, the question is -- what is the best predictor.
In reading both the administration POV, and the opposition, the prediction a critic might make for '03-'04 is this:
... the economy will spiral downward, worldwide violence will increase, price of oil will go up, market will decline, international trade relations will swing away from the US, militarization will increase, personal liberties will suffer, taxes will increase, Bush cronies will profit in an extremely large way, and ... there will not be an open news conference where any of the dozens of unanswered questions from 9/11 will come up for Bush I/II or Cheney...
There doesn't have to be some mysterious cabal exclusively running things, just the usual chain of command and Executive influence, with exactly the wrong motivations, i.e., profiteering.
If so, one would expect the usual variety of Congressional, Executive and DOD groups we all know about, and, as critics say, working too much out of sight, and out of control, confusing their own interests with that of the country.
"One dumb thing after another" would be a fine, statistically valid view, if some other argument didn't predict future events.
And also if public information weren't so carefully hidden.
FWIW, I think that's the greatest concern, and source of suspicion, regardless of conclusions. |
