[JohnGalt]

...

[Huck]

I don't know about this article. Smells fishy.

[JohnGalt]

Thought you might like this one.

I don't know much about Laughland but I saw this piece from him which he wrote in 1999 and I think it provides ample background for the tone of this article.

Contrary to propaganda, mass graves in Kosovo are a myth, says John Laughland

[Petronski]

That's EXACTLY what they want you to think.

[dirtboy]

It is also odd that opponents of conspiracy theories often allow that conspiracies have occurred in the past, but refuse to contemplate their existence in the present. For some reason, you are bordering on the bonkers if you wonder about the truth behind events like 9/11

However, another aspect of a good conspiracy theory is that it should make more sense than the official version of events. Therefore, having al Qaeda fly planes into the WTC and having that event cause their collapse makes far more sense than a theory that they were brought down by a controlled implosion - without anyone noticing the massive preparatory work that would have been required.

Now, compare the various 9/11 conspiracies to, say, Vince Foster. The official version of events has Vince Foster driving to the park without his car keys, walking down a dirt path without getting dust on the soles of his shoes, and shooting himself in the head without getting blowback on his hand with a gun that changed color. In this case, the official version makes no sense.

[dirtboy]

In fact, it is the other way round. British and American foreign policy is itself based on a series of highly improbable conspiracy theories, the biggest of which is that an evil Saudi millionaire genius in a cave in the Hindu Kush controls a secret worldwide network of ‘tens of thousands of terrorists’ ‘in more than 60 countries’ (George Bush).

This is downright stupid. Al Qaeda was built prior to 9/11, when bin Laden was able to freely roam Afghanistan and communicate with his underlings without fear of counterattack. It was the actions after 9/11 that drove bin Laden into the cave - and al Qaeda has been far less effective since.

So here is another requirement for a credible conspiracy theory - its premises should fit the facts instead of ignoring or fabricating them.

[Peach]

So this is where you get your news. Now there's a reliable source (snicker).

Freepers would be well advised to understand Galt's current position: He believes nearly all Bush administration officials should be fired for "lying" about WMD and the threat that Iraq posed.

In addition to the long list of current administration "liars", Galt also thinks the following lied about Iraq and WMD: (Please note that all the following people knew that Iraq had WMD in the 90's):

Clinton, Albright, UNSCOM (all of them apparently), the UN Security Council, Tom Daschle, Teddy Kennedy, most of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress in the 90's, every country in the world that has an intelligence agency and said Saddam was a threat and had WMD; Laurie Mylroie, all the writers and authors who have written books about Iraq and terrorism, all the reporters who wrote hundreds of articles in the 90's who were concerned about the growing connections to Al Qaeda and Iraq... The list goes on and on.

In JohnGalt's worldview, you are a deadender idiot if you believe the President and all those people mentioned above. He thinks we are conspiracy theorists, not realizing apparently that it is he who is the conspiracy theorist.

[muskogee]

What is a "mass of anthrax"? A truckload? A 50 pound bag? or 16 ounces? Depends on who you ask I guess.

[ravingnutter]

Paul O’Neill, George Bush’s former Treasury Secretary, has just revealed that the White House decided to get rid of Saddam eight months before 9/11.

There went his credibility...

Clinton Signs Iraqi Liberation Act

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties

Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton Says

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People

Iraq: Still a Nuclear Threat(Nuclear Control Intitute's collection of articles)

Even O'Neill is backpeddling on his statements.

O'Neill Says Book Bashing Bush 'Isn't My Book'

Lid Blown Off O'Neill/Suskind Hoax

O'Neill War Memo Came from Clinton

[Hatteras]

Heeeeere, Kitty....

[Destructor]

I believe in conspiracies too! I believe the U.N. is conspiring to take over the world by forcing/tricking all of the nations of the world into relinquishing their national sovereignty. To those of you that call me "tin foil"-- prove me wrong!

[Action-America]

Before I launch into defending the administration, I should let you know my opinion of Dubya. I won't vote for him. I believe that he has done more real damage to the Constitution in three years, than klinton did in his entire eight years in office. Oh, I'm sure that klinton would have done much worse, but he was blocked by a Republican Congress - more or less the same Republican Congress that now gives Dubya a pass for his disregard for the Constitution. In short, I think that Dubya's domestic cure for terrorism is much worse than the disease and far overshadows the good that he has accomplished in the military war. But, the key word is "domestic".

I just want the liberals out there to know where I'm coming from, before I shoot holes all through their ridiculous conspiracy theories. It's really easy to understand why their conspiracy theories don't hold water.

1. The vast majority of the world's journalists and editors are admitted liberals, who would like nothing better than to find any evidence of a conspiracy involving Dubya.
2. There are thousands of hungry would-be Woodwards or Bernsteins out there, digging into every little unexplained or suspicious event surrounding the war on terrorism, hoping to make it into the big time.
3. For there to be a government conspiracy, to make it look like a whole bunch of disparate groups are indeed linked to one organization, thousands of people, in both the US government and foreign governments would have to be involved.

There is an old adage that applies here.

"The only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead."

There would have to be far too many people involved to keep it a secret. Some people would disagree with the strategy. Others would be slighted, for not getting the promotion that went to someone else. Yet, others would take advantage of the situation to claim their 15 minutes of fame. If it were a government conspiracy, there would be leaks all over the place.

There aren't!

The numerous leaks that would be inherent in such huge conspiracy, just aren't present.

In fact, the only credible person to come forward with anything close to evidence of a conspiracy, is Paul O'Niell and all that his evidence suggests is that the administration was preparing for war in Iraq. The fact that they were doing so long before the 9-11 attacks, just demonstrates adequate foresight. If the truth be known, they probably prepared for war with North Korea, Syria, Iran and even China, as well. In fact, I would imagine that they probably have plans for war in every Middle Eastern country. To do anything less, would be totally irresponsible. It's called being prepared. I wouldn't want to think that any administration didn't have a plan to invade or defend against any of our potential enemies. So, even O'Niell's statements don't qualify as evidence of a conspiracy.

If the administration were engaged in this type of conspiracy, there would be lots of smoke. We might not be able to see the fire, but the smoke would be evident all over the place. It isn't!

Even a grade schooler could see that the conspiracy theorists are just trying to invent reasons for people to dislike Dubya. By doing so, they do more harm to their cause, than good. That's because after falsely crying wolf so many times, when they turn their attentions to Dubya's all to real domestic transgressions, the people just dismiss those protestations, as well.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Dubya, but his military policy is certainly not one of them. If I fault his military policy at all, it is in the time he took to act. But, I'll grant that once he did act, it was decisively and for that I give him credit.

The real problem with Dubya is not in his military policy, but in his domestic policy. In fact, Dubya's domestic policy is doing more damage to our country, by seriously subverting our Constitution, than the terrorists could have done, had they flown a hundred planes that day in September of 2001. Because of Dubya's domestic response to the 9-11 attacks, even if we kill every al-Qa'eda terrorist in the world, they will still have won, because the USA will never be nearly as free as it was before the attacks and Dubya's response to them. After all, history shows that once a people allow government to take away some of their rights, regardless of reason, that government will never return those rights to the people without bloodshed.

The operative word in that last sentence is "allow". We still have a chance to reverse these assaults on the Constitution. But, if we reelect Dubya, we will have effectively ceded the 4th, 6th and 10th Amendments to the federal government and neither we nor our children will ever get them back without bloodshed.

The liberals don't need to invent some imagined foreign transgression to make Dubya look bad. They have a plethora of good solid reasons right here at home. All that it requires is that they compare Dubya's actions to the limits on his power, as laid out in the Constitution and its amendments. Of course, that probably explains why the liberals don't want to attack Dubya on this issue. After all, liberals have no more use for the Constitution than does Dubya.