Do you use a straw when you suck up his swill? Your hero is a man whose response to the genocide in Rwanda is a glib platitude - "Minding one's own business is a virtue" - as followed up by some precious turns of phrase and an expansive digression on Henry Clay, Panama, Henry Cabot Lodge, JP Morgan, Pearl Harbor, and so on, and so on. This is your moral paragon? The charitable interpretation would be that he lost his mind long ago. His slanderous and derivative conspiracy theories were debunked when his lamentable book and associated interviews came out last October. Try, for instance: http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2002_06_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html#77997492 and http://cointelprotool.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_cointelprotool_archive.html#83597763 and http://www.happyfunpundit.com/hfp/archives/000405.html Can't you all do better than this bitter and dishonest egomaniac? It's as though he's trying as hard as he can to make Chomsky look reasonable. Really, so long as you depend on people like these for leadership and direction, you're not going to get very far. While assembling the above links, I ran across this quote from Damian Penny. I think it sums up your predicament well: http://damianpenny.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_damianpenny_archive.html#83596396
What "evidence" are you talking about? I have no idea what you're referring to. I, I mean the US, will certainly take your opinions under advisement, rest assured. Feel better now? If not, I suggest you start a thread devoted to UNEQUAL DEVELOPMENT, LATE CAPITALISM, THE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH, or whatever other books, essays, or youth group recruiting pamphlets have helped you to form your "Blame America First!" worldview.
KymareFye, et al, Since I was first to post Vidal's work on this thread I assume you have, atleast in part, directed your comments towards me. Your inflammatory tone is an astonishing defense against an attack that does not exist. He is by all means a man of many opinions which are far left of the mean. He does though offer a good deal of research to support his opinions and because I could not do the same, atleast have respect for the man. However, I need not defend G. Vidal and wish not to argue the veracity of his views. What was presented was presented for discussion, but I will not participate in any which includes the defammation an Elite Trader's the character, whoever they may be. Sincerely, RLB
Secret units in desperate hunt for banned arsenal Saturday April 12, 2003 Britain and the United States have bypassed the United Nations to establish a secret team of inspectors to resume the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is a sign of the desperation in London and Washington to find a "smoking gun" to justify the war that the Anglo-American team has already conducted three inspections in the past two weeks. No banned weapons have so far been found. The decision to set up a new group of inspectors, dubbed US-movic because they are an American-led rival to Unmovic, will infuriate the UN. Kofi Annan, the secretary general, pointedly reminded Britain and the US this week that Unmovic still has a mandate to carry out inspections. Last night the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, added his criticism by saying that war against Iraq was a foregone conclusion months before the first shot was fired. In a scathing attack on Britain and the US, Mr Blix accused them of planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against Iraq to justify their campaign. Mr Blix told the Spanish daily El Pais: "There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the [weapons] inspections." He said Iraq was paying "a very high price _ in terms of human lives and the destruction of a country" when the threat of banned weapons could have been contained by UN inspections. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,935304,00.html
A straw? Silly patriotic believer, you get the best high from mainlining Vidal. Seriously folks, RLB is right. No one here pledged allegiance to Vidal but his work is well researched and well written. Anyways, Kymar I read your link debunking the NORAD accusation. Maybe I missed something but the debunking seems based on normalizing the delay of the fighters taking flight. Maybe this is truly normal but it seems hard to fathom why it would be so slow. More persuasive to me is Vidal's claim, also reported by others, that Bush had a attack plan for Afghanistan sitting on his desk Sept 10, 2001.
The UN inspections were doing a marvelous job of contaiment and Blix was patting himself and others on the back when in 1995 Saddam Hussein's son in law (Hussein al-Kamel) escaped to Jordan and spilled the beans about the Al Atheer compound. Later he (stupidly) was lured back to Iraq and to his family on promises of pardon, and killed in an exemplarily cruel way by Saddam himself. That (and other things) proved that the UN could not give any guarantees whatsoever about the state of Iraq's nuclear program. http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/jn98con.htm http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1998/mj98/mj98albright.html Here's a thought msfe: trade in the Guardian for a brain.
Because, even after 9/11, the US cannot and does not keep fighter planes ready to take off immediately and intercept any and all civilian aircraft within minutes of detecting that they're off course anywhere and everywhere in the United States. The debunking material also outlines how such "automatic" orders are actually understood and executed. In Vidal's paranoid vision of US militarism, a plane goes off course, and the bloodthirsty Air Force types scramble off to bring it down - unless, of course, they're prevented from doing so by conspiracy-generated secret commands. In this context, it's also worth pointing out that the debunkers were merely observing recent high-profile off-course plane events, including ones that took place post-9/11. If the world worked as in Vidal's ravings, air travel insurance would be a lot more expensive, and the number of US civilian aircraft that have been shot down by fighter aircraft would be a little higher than the current number, which I believe is zero. I have no idea why you consider this claim persuasive, nor who the others are, nor precisely what they reported. If you or they mean that plans for military action in Afghanistan existed at the time, then the explanation is: Of course, they did. Reporting by individuals such as Bob Woodward indicate that old contingency plans of that type were dusted off immediately after 9/11, found wanting, and hastily revised. If you mean that "the plan" was said to have been literally sitting on Bush's desk in the Oval Office on 9/10/01, or wherever else Bush keeps a desk, in plain view of intimates of Gore Vidal's, then that strikes me as a decidedly sloppy way to run a conspiracy, and very out-of-keeping with the supernatural perfection of an operation that otherwise must have managed to rope in and impose secrecy on thousands of individuals on several continents, while in the process of arranging the murders of thousands more before a worldwide audience. I would find it easier to believe that Vidal and the others are irresponsible or deranged or very gullible or all three.
Do you entertain the possibility that Roosevelt knew of, even instigated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? This, if agreed upon, I think would set a precedent for our government allowing the death of its own citizens for the express purpose of making war. It would also show that such actions need not require perfect security to take place. One might consider the possibility that security, so long as not blatantly breached by factions willing and able to sway public opinion, is a lesser factor when compared to the susceptibility of the masses to the pursuasive acts of our government. Another, more Machiavellian question would be, "who stands more to gain?" Is it Bush, et al who, as you have agreed had already planned - if not desired - a war with Afghanistan, or Vidal, et al who are regularly denounced publicly and seemingly without financial need?
At best, Vidal's conspiracy ideas and the many myths surrounding 9/11 reflect an inability to simply accept the attacks as the work of Al-Queda, that such a attack that shook the country to its core could have been pulled off by 18 Arabs with boxcutters. At worst, they deeply beleive their theories, they see grand collusion by a powerful few to fundamentally change the world (e.g. Harrytrader), I think these people feel marginalized and must find a sinister force for their self-perceptions and outward distrust. A conspiracy that involved President Bush to allow 9/11 to occur would have been so deep and involved so many different individuals in different govermental departments that a cover-up would have been practically impossible. That the powers that be now had targeted Iraq and Hussein 6 years ago provides no proof of a 9/11 plot. Re: Prove it.