Truth, the Left, and 9/11 Revisited

There is mental blockage on the left concerning 9/11. It's limited but still quite widespread. More leftists than not, by far, currently echo the neocons' "official" version. Why?

Doug Henwood is a Facebook friend of mine. Doug is highly intelligent and a rather astute political observer, analyst, and commentator. I've found many of his insights concerning Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein and others to be spot on.

Doug, however (as with many, many others on the left), doesn't hold with what is called the 9/11 Truth Movement. Over the years, I've experienced a number of "leftists" unfriending me after calling me various unfriendly names because I argued in favor of 9/11 Truth.

I say "many, many others on the left" rather than "everyone on the left" because there is a contingent of leftists in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

It has troubled me over the years that so many on the left so readily accept the neocon position concerning 9/11 regardless of any and all evidence questioning, and in many cases utterly demolishing, the neocon position.

Here's why I'm posting on it now (which happens to be the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks).

Doug Henwood shared Alexander Cockburn's article, "The 9/11 Conspiracists: Vindicated After All These Years?." The article is from September 2, 2011.

I commented on Doug's share as follows, clearly annoyed, and beginning with a direct quote from Cockburn's article about Cockburn's own conspiracy adoption even in the face of Cockburn pooh-poohing 9/11 Truth:

"Of course there are conspiracies. The allegations that Saddam Hussein had WMD amounted to just such a one. I think there is strong evidence that FDR did have knowledge that a Japanese naval force in the north Pacific was going to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor." But, but, but there can't be any others, I think ... yada yada.

Please! The article is naively arrogant. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" applies.

Just because people who try to pull off conspiracies include stupid people who make mistakes and don't cover everything doesn't mean that some of their attempts don't succeed. Why wasn't Gladio mentioned? There are countless other examples.

Where did he get the info on FDR? I know where he got it. The case lays out a very elaborate conspiracy involving many, many people and that brought down extremely high ranking military personnel in charge of protecting Pearl. How many leaks were there? Actually, none.

Not long after, Bob Love commented with:

I for one am (sort of) pleased that all these under-medicated psychonauts have so many conspiracies theories to extrapolate. Better they spend their lives on the computer than roaming the streets.

That's very typical.

To which I replied:

Bob Love,

Is MKUltra still a theory to you?

I'm just wondering where you draw the lines for yourself, the way Alexander Cockburn drew the line for himself: "...strong evidence that FDR did have knowledge that a Japanese naval force in the north Pacific was going to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor."

Did Cockburn just let his under-medicated psychonautism peek through there in your view?

I, for one, am thrilled that people dig and dig and dig and expose and expose and expose. I'm glad I know about Operation Northwoods and the many, many other real conspiracies planned and others actually executed.

I think anyone who thinks otherwise about those conspiracies is an ignoramus, dumbass, or both. Don't you? There's always the possibility he or she is a PSYOPS agent too. You do believe there is such a thing, right?

Bob has not answered, which doesn't surprise me in the least. He may have other reasons, but direct challenges to those who summarily dismiss 9/11 quite often go completely ignored with those being challenged continuing right on as if no refutation has occurred. Why is that?

Andrew Geller commented:

Such a stupid article, wholly ignorant of so many things. Heat sinks, multiple war games, the sub-basement bank vault destroyed *before* the first plane struck, the mid-air pulverization of millions of tons of previously solid materials, WTC 7, a key last-minute NMCC staffing change, the failure of multiple 'standard operating procedure' systems (civilian and military)...

Andrew's mentioning of "Heat sinks" prompted me to add information concerning the molten metal at the 9/11 site.

9/11 Molten Metal:

All those people reporting the molten metal lied, or they told the truth and the molten metal is proof of something beyond the jets, the jet-fuel and directly resulting fires, and any "pancaking" of the building floors where the jets (and fuel fires) were the proximate cause (nothing else, no planned demolition involved).

The molten-metal "debunkers" never agree that there was all that molten metal and then offer rational and reasonable explanations for its existence. They always only dance around it. It doesn't seem to matter to them that the molten metal was not covered in the official Commission Report either.

This source is well-documented and well-written and fully supports/substantiates my contentions, which I arrived at independently long before reading the source:

Why would anyone in his or her right mind believe all those people reporting all that molten metal lied? Would it be mostly cognitive dissonance or are they just that loath to believe anything that plenty of "libertarian" types believe?

Can't the truth be something that both many on the left and many libertarians believe at the same time? Why is 9/11 so different from anti-war beliefs?

Is it because of the difference on the subject of "limited government," where many on the left don't believe government is inherently more dangerous than private enterprise but rather believe "big government" can be good government (if properly reformed/designed)?

So, you read there my questions concerning the left and 9/11 Truth.

I started this post by saying:

There is mental blockage on the left concerning 9/11. It's limited but still quite widespread. More leftists than not, by far, currently echo the neocons' "official" version. Why?

It's THE question of our time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Max Fisher, Yes, Hillary Clinton is a War-Hawk

I'm answering Max Fisher, "Is Hillary Clinton really the foreign policy super-hawk she is portrayed to be?"

Hillary Clinton was held back by others in the Obama administration (particularly Obama himself) concerning foreign policy and militarism.

Concerning Trump, of course he's more of an unknown because he hasn't served in office regarding the use of military force. THE issue is, and remains, Russia. It's THE issue because the US and Russia are both the only nuclear-weapons superpowers (though the US hasn't been doing nearly enough diplomacy to disarm the world of nuclear weapons, just the opposite). Clinton's approach to Vladimir Putin is stupid relative to Trump's. That doesn't prove Trump would be better, but it can't be simply dismissed via propaganda.

The "reset with Russia" was a distraction while the CIA worked on the coup in Ukraine. Come on.

"She met Chinese aggression in the South China Sea by organizing regional diplomatic organizations to counterbalance China." That's not dovish. It's comical that Fisher includes it as such.

"In 2009, she met with Mutassim Qaddafi, the highest-level meeting between Libyan and American officials in years, as part of an outreach to the country." That was not what happened. It was the other way around. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi convinced his father that the Qaddaffis should reach out to the US. So that's what happened. What was the result though? When al Qaeda was in the wings of the Arab Spring, which the US State Department knew full well, and Qaddaffi was being his usual bombastic self, the neocons in the Obama administration, particularly Susan Rice and Samantha Power, convinced Hillary Clinton (wasn't hard: Rwanda) to work on Obama to forget Qaddaffi's outreach ( and rather bomb his forces. We know the result: "We saw. We came. He died": cue laughter. Rice, Power, and Clinton had no plan about what to do after they killed Qaddaffi via their surrogate militant-jihadis. Obama called that his biggest foreign-policy error. I could have told him that before it happened. I publicly said not to do it, not to bomb!

"In 2012, she quietly opened talks with Iran, which would culminate in the nuclear deal." She was a rabid fan of the sanctions in the face of zero evidence Iran had a nuclear-weapons program, which US intelligence made clear. The Obama administration and Hillary Clinton lied and lied and lied for many months that Iran had a program. Hillary Clinton still falsely claims to this day that they had one at the time. To his credit, Obama stopped doing that. She was not behind the Iran deal much at all. She deserves little to no credit for it. It was not her idea and she didn't really rally behind it in any enthusiastic way! She just went through the motions. What choice did she have, resign due to conscience? Ha!

"Clinton's record of supporting military interventions tends to focus on failed states or ongoing civil wars where she wants the US to help reimpose order or push that conflict toward her desired outcome, and in this way she does stand out from other candidates as unusually inclined to military force." That's BS, pure spin. Libya was not failed and would not have failed. Syria was not failed and would not have failed. In both cases, the leadership there could have been quickly aided to not allow militant jihadis to quickly co-opt the naïvely and grossly mismanaged Arab Spring. It called for real diplomatic expertise, which is far from what we witnessed. What we saw was hawkish ineptitude.

Concerning her Iraq War vote, Fisher conjures up the "lapse" argument. The Iraq vote came before Libya and Syria and Ukraine and Yemen and so many others. To call Iraq a lapse is to blank out on everything that came afterwards, to ignore the clear neocon/"liberal" interventionist/war-hawk pattern.

"...the US has to impose more pressure on Vladimir Putin." No, the US needs to knock off the neocon-pattern of telling lies concerning Russia. Trump, at least, appears to not have his head buried in the sand on that.

"One exception is Syria on ISIS, on which Clinton has positioned herself as more hawkish than President Obama, for example by arguing for a limited no-fly zone over part of Syria. But Republicans have also proposed this policy.
"It's hard to know how seriously to take such proposals, given that no-fly zones would be mostly symbolic and are unlikely to substantially alter the war. It is also difficult to say how much this is a real policy difference versus an election-year attempt at political positioning." Oh brother, "symbolic"? The no-fly zone would be exactly as the one imposed in Iraq when Saddam was in power there, far from symbolic. Hillary Clinton has been pushing for this even while Russia has been flying the entire country. Obama is trying his best right now to help Hillary's campaign by working with Putin to stop all air campaigning in Syria (removing the issue). They just reached a deal. Whether it will hold is a different matter. The "rebels" have to abide by certain conditions. They didn't abide by the last ceasefire, but Obama is more and more serious about putting a huge Syrian-deal feather in his cap before leaving office.

Clinton is openly accusing Russia of hacking the DNC. She hasn't been saying "allegedly." That's reckless. That's her proven, on-going pattern. She's terrible at foreign policy.

The term "super-hawk" is a matter of semantics. It's relative. To the anti-war movement, she's very hawkish. Is she as trigger happy as John McCain? Is anyone?

"...the US government can at least nominally control domestic policy outright, international affairs is a realm largely beyond American control. It's also because domestic policy is much easier to plan for — people will get sick and require health care; kids will enter school age and require education — whereas foreign policy is more about responding to unforeseen events, so a president's most important decisions are often how they respond in a crisis." That's absolute hogwash! Domestic and foreign policy can both be, and should be, planned equally. There's no lack of domestic crises either! Many of the domestic and international crises are a direct result of the lack of proper planning. How much of it is intentional? Economic and financial approaches are a constant argument. Privatizers manufacture crises. All real leftists know that.

Oh, and then there's Hillary backing the fascists in Honduras.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do Not Excuse Hillary Clinton's Governmental Corruption Via Trump's Cutthroat-Business Practices

Hillary Clinton still says the Iranians had a nuclear-weapons program when sanctions were placed on Iran and even though she was fully aware (I was) that US Intelligence had made perfectly clear the Iranians had no such program. In fact, the Obama administration had to back off the claim and rather start saying "alleged" and "suspected" nuclear-weapons program.

Hillary Clinton emphatically accused Russia of hacking the DNC even though she is fully aware of (I am) that all truly credible experts on the subject qualify their position with the fact that absolutely nobody working on the side of the United States has proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Hillary Clinton has been behind the push for war after war after war (mostly based upon proven pretexts) and wars we haven't even gotten into yet. She signed off on gigantic weapons deals to the most draconian regimes in the world, especially the Saudi regime. She did that after her Foundation received huge donations from those same Saudis.

Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, didn't just happen to follow her or be just in front of her in numerous countries right where Bill gave lucrative speeches, those nations gave big donations to the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary then signed off on various US governmental deals for those nations. The odds against those things all being mere coincidences are astronomical. There is causation, and the cause is corruption. It is not just the appearance of conflicts of interest. The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming.

Hillary Clinton is deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex and US global imperialism, where the truth always takes a backseat. Money, power, and control is always first and foremost. It is always an elitist enterprise. Democracy, therefore, also always takes a backseat.

The Clinton's set out to build a personal empire. They are now multi-multi millionaires. If she is elected President, that trend will continue well into the next generation of Clintons. They are not about promoting the general welfare of Americans except in ways that they can use that to amass more personal wealth, power, and control for their Clinton-family members. That's not good government at all!

Hillary Clinton had a corrupt deal going with the Democratic Party where money would stealthily flow back into her campaign.

Hillary Clinton blatantly lied about being under sniper fire and having to run for cover when landing at an airport. Videos prove that she was instead warmly received after landing at the airport. The entire event was calm. There was no gunfire.

Over the years, Hillary Clinton has shown a clear pattern of records destruction when she is under investigation and then faining ignorance of various sorts. The most recent case concerns her private email server where she commingled private and governmental communications, some of which governmental communications were marked [C] for classified "confidential" and definitely should not have been handled via that server.

Hillary Clinton claimed to the FBI that she thought those "[C]" markings stood for the alphabetical order of the paragraphs in the communications. (

However, Julian Assange's WikiLeaks has definitively shown that Hillary Clinton's answer to the FBI was disingenuous. It is either that or she's suffering from rather severe dementia or some other mental problem causing major lapses in memory.

Julian Assange states that WikiLeaks has thousands of documents showing Hillary Clinton signing off on "[C]" communications where there is zero possibility that those [C]'s were indicating alphabetical order of paragraphs.

"We have thousands of examples where she, herself has used this C in brackets and signed it off. And more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this C in brackets." ~ Julian Assange

Then you wonder why the Hillary Clinton campaign and her vast network of neocon supporters have been trying to change the subject to Julian Assange as a Russian agent and other such nonsense.

Now, some Hillary apologists may seek to jump on the notion that the [C]'s in the text of messages and the [C]'s on the sign-off documents are completely different settings and that, therefore, Clinton's claim is plausible. However, the FBI was investigating what Hillary thought those [C]'s meant. It is not plausible that Hillary Clinton would completely disassociate the use of the [C]'s on the sign-off documents from the [C]'s in the message-text margins, not after tens of thousands of messages.

So, many people don't want Donald Trump to win. When are those people going to stop being conflicted by their own self-fulfilling prophecies? They claim that Bernie Sanders' and Jill Stein's and other's platforms are superior but that too many others just would never go along with those better platforms. If everyone who says that it's the other guys or gals ("centrists", "moderates") who are the problem would simply vote for the best platform instead, we'd finally get good government on the way and not some "incremental" improvements that, in reality, are coupled with mega-corruption and needless and ceaseless wars, etc. One step forward and two steps back is not progress.

Things have gotten better in many areas. Things have gotten much worse in others. Those others are vastly more existential: war with Russia and/or China (likely both at once) and others joining in against the US and yet others the US would call on for support simply backing off, all leading to WWIII and likely global thermonuclear exchange making the entire exterior surface of the planet uninhabitable without super hazmat suits for quite limited times. Billions, the majority, of us would die for reasons ranging from direct annihilation and incineration to nuclear poisoning and cancer.

What does the Hillary Clinton campaign, loaded with neocons, attempt to do on this issue? They attempt to paint Donald Trump as the more dangerous of the two even though they simultaneously paint Trump as a Kremlin agent. How can he be both? It's very dumb on its face. If he's with Putin, he's not going to go to war against Putin. Only ignoramuses and idiots will fall for the neocon-drivel again!

Remember, Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction! Also remember that the UN knew that and that tens of millions of people around the world marched in the streets protesting the planned neocon war on Iraq. Then finally remember that after the neocons had attacked (especially under the dual pretexts of a Saddam-9/11 connection and the yellowcake memo, they knew at the time was a forgery), they admitted that Saddam had no 9/11-al Qaeda connection, quite the contrary, and that there were no WMD's in Iraq but masked over the fact that the world knew that going in. Instead, those neocons to this day pretend that "nobody knew," etc.

They are liars through and through. It's their stock and trade.

Now are you going to vote for their candidate? If you do, how will you escape damnation?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment