Hey Tony, I already did!

Michael:

Thank you for your more measured comments.  Setting aside the Hillary thing (and I still feel justified in supporting her vis-a-vis this specific issue, based on my most recent comment to you), you are right that it is far more important to find common ground than remain adversarial.  Most of us dislike (okay, hate) Bush, Cheney & Co., and, setting aside our understandable fears, etc., would probably put little or nothing past them in their continued (and largely successful) attempts to centralize all power in the executive.

As for myself (and I am grateful for your comment in this regard), it is because I am NOT a “raver” that I am considered so “valuable” as a resource.  Yes, the conclusions that I have come to (thus far) from my research have led me to “take sides” in favor of a LIHOP/MIHOP theory.  But that does not mean that I cannot remain neutral in the actual methodology of my research, and my pursuit of the “most probable truth.” In my opinion, “Occam’s Razor” is not ALWAYS correct, and this is particularly true re issues or events in which the “official story” is so manifestly full of holes.

Peace.

You know Maani, after all of this infighting between us and having read some of your previous posts, I must admit that regardless of our obvious contrasts concerning the 9/11 truth movement, I see we actually have a whole lot more in common than we don’t. I was being too harsh and over reactionary(raving) with you concerning this matter and for that I do apologize. You were trying to make nice with me, find some middle ground and there I go off on a tangent! I’ve had some really bad experiences with real ravers who in fact were the catalysts in my writing that piece. Some of them in fact are not only my adversaries, they are yours as well. On that note, I do not wish to be your adversary and like you, I hope for a new president who will address the issues, investigate for truth and save us from this neocon nightmare we’ve been living in for the last 7 years.

Peace! I hope!

John,

Thank you ever so much for this lesson. Yes, it has made my day!

If I can add, my favorite part is the computer response of “bongo in the drums”. This is a VERY helpful addition to my vocabulary.

Now, instead of asking someone/anyone, if they’re OUT OF THEIR F-ING MIND, I can just suggest that the are “bongo in the drums”. Oh yes indeed...much better.

I agree Tony, but perception is everything.

Quasi apology as compare to quasi explanation concerning your support for a candidate you consider to be treasonous? Hmmmm! I don’t buy it! As I’ve stated before, I do not apologize for my article and as I’ve also tried to emphasize both in the article and the last post, I don’t believe all of the “truthers” are Nazi’s. But what amazes me is the fact you did nothing to acknowledge the clear connections to these nefarious groups(right wing persons as you now call them), only trashed my article as fruitless garble. That sounds like a raver to me. Probably a Larouche fan too!

My article only focused on those who have clear connections, so it was not an attempt to undermine the movement, it was an attempt to point out who actually is undermining it. Also your statements about Hillary, calling her complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and being immoral will only undermine her chances to getting the nomination. That seems to be a pretty funny way of supporting a candidate and what’s worse, chastising those in here who don’t support her.

Michael:

First, a quasi-apology.  I did misread your comment about 9/11 truthers and Israel: in context, you were clearly referring to a specific group of writers. However, it is only a quasi-apology because you waited until the very last paragraph to make this clear, as well as making ANY comment on ANY validity of 9/11 Truth research.  Thus, the focus of 95% of your article was in denigrating SOME (and not even that many) in the movement.

Now let me address a couple of your comments.

Re the question of “why” they attacked us, I do not disagree that our adventurism etc. has caused great hatred for the U.S., particularly in the Arab community.  Yet this has been true for decades: so, assuming you are right re who undertook 9/11, why did they attack when they did?  There was nothing particularly “special” going on re the U.S. and the Arab nations.  Why not attack when Clinton was president?  Or even Bush pere, who they hated even more?  No, simple decades-long hatred for U.S. policy and adventurism does not explain it.

Re who benefitted: I’m glad to see you accept my premise, since, despite your attempted sidelining of it, that is the FAR more relevant and appropriate question, especially given the above.

I am hardly a “raver advocate” of conspiracy theories.  Indeed, I doubt anyone here would accuse me of “raving” about my beliefs in this regard.  And isn’t this just a tad like the pot calling the kettle black?  After all, your article is ultimately “raving” about right-wing persons in the movement.  And you obviously spent time finding out all the info that you did.  So even WERE my comments “raving,” why would that be wrong, given how much study I have done on the issue?

Finally, re the Clinton question, it is pretty simple.  If all of us withdrew support for every politician who we knew, or believed, was involved in any sort of chicanery or skullduggery, we would never vote for anyone, and would probably be better just moving to Portugal.  (I hear they have a large and inviting expatriate community there...)

No, the answer is this: even if Clinton IS “in the know,” post facto, re the LIHOP or MIHOP theory of 9/11 (and, by the way, Obama may well be, too), this does not have one iota to do with what she (or he) has done or how she (or he) might govern, or what their policies and positions are on the issues.

I hope this puts this issue to bed.

Peace.

and before I’m burned in effigy, I do not believe in the official canard concerning 9/11. I also believe this administration is covering up vital information about the attacks. Also since I have no faith or trust in them whatsoever, I think they are capable of anything.

That said I also have trouble with those certain elements within the movement, including Alex Jones and others who have clear ties to extremist organizations. I believe they are hurting the movement and discrediting it. For any skepticism I have, I blame them.

I do however have great respect for Scott Ritter, Karen Kwiatkowski and other former military who are pressing with some pretty interesting points about these attacks. When military experts state that the evidence produced from the pentagon attack looks like a missile rather than an aircraft, well they are the experts and I am not. More importantly, I find both of them to be intelligent and honest people with integrity.

Clearly a new, thorough and independent investigation is called for and should any of our leaders be found complicit, they should be treated precisely as the traitors they are.

To my ear, there was nothing the least bit wrong or untrue about Hillary’s statment about MLK needing Lyndon Johnson. He needed Kennedy too, for that matter. On the contrary, the remarks by Obama campaign people that this was belittling MLK were and are race-baiting. Obama should have repudiated these statements, as Hillary should have repudiated the insinuations of Robert Johnson about Obama’s drug use. Since neither of them have done this, I consider them both sleazy. If I get much more of this sleaze I’m voting for Kucinich in the primaries. At least I will have a clear conscience. Of course I will vote for the Democratic nominee against any Republican (while holding my nose).

Well lets not forget that Huffington is not a democrat. But I agree with you. We need to be a unified body as the republicans will certainly be. We should not be inflicted collateral damage on each other either that the neocons will most certainly use against us. That said, the statements made by Hillary concerning MLK were a blunder, though I’m sure she didn’t mean to downsize his importance in the civil rights movement. It was a mistake however and according to progressive polls in California, Hillary has lost the lead she had last week and Obama is now on top. Also and interestingly, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich are running a very close second and third. Of course these stats will change in the coming weeks but I believe it shows the comments made by Hillary did her no good, at least in California.

No I’m not kidding! The question was asked, then only answered rhetorically in brief sound bytes by either the president or by corporate sponsored pundits, most of whom are themselves members of the MIC. There was no room for debate. It was never seriously addressed or properly analyzed, nor did anyone outside of major media or administrative circles have an opportunity to address it. Ana Nicole’s predictable death got more analyzing then the why question ever did. So did Brittany’s no panties episode! When was the last time you heard someone on FOX News or CNN ask Noam Chomsky, Scott Ritter or Amy Goodman that question? Never! You never will either and that was precisely my point! Your attempts to twist my context is no different than the government’s rhetoric in playing off the attacks as a jealous contempt for freedom, something I also mentioned in my post along with Bush’s own commentary.

As far as the question in who benefited, it seems much less of a revelation to me then it does to you but you are right, they didn’t ask that question and the reasons they didn’t are the same as the reasons they failed to address the “why”. It seems obvious who benefited. By today’s standards it would be the MIC, multinational corporations, private security firms, defense and energy contractors and the rich in general, the same people who always benefit in such circumstances. 

As for my article, your disgust in it comes as no surprise just as you inability to answer a simple question concerning your alleged support of Hilary Clinton. I noticed you’re still ducking that one! How one can call themselves the supporter of a candidate one moment then call them complicit in an act that basically amounts to treason the next is not only perplexing, it’s downright preposterous! And you’re talking about me confusing the facts! Which facts in there are you confused about, that Piper is a racist Nazi? That LaRouche is a fruitcake or that Bollyn is a regular on the David Duke show?

I make no apologies about my article. Also I never stated in there that “all truthers” are complicit. That is you saying that, putting words in my mouth. It posts relevant facts about certain disturbing elements of the movement that most people might never have know about otherwise. Also it seems interesting that a group who wants to analyze the cloths off of practically everybody to seek the so called truth, suddenly feel threatened when someone tries to take a peek at them. The fact a raver advocate in conspiracy theorizations finds it distasteful and biased comes as no shock. That is precisely how I found these far right “elements"(not everyone) in the said movement. In fact I have noted their philosophy is amazingly similar to that of George W. Bush: Either you’re with the movement or you’re an agent of the MOSSAD, member of the truth police or or an uneducated twit not capable of valid conversation. That’s funny coming from a group who thus far haven’t substantiated anything beyond a fertile imagination!

People do have some legitimate reasons for opposing Hillary Clinton.  She has a solid record of actions that I disagree with, going back to her tenure as first lady.  In your view, the fact that many people dislike her record is only bashing and unfounded.  Most people who post here give some pretty specific reasons for not making her their choice.

But it’s bashing because what we dislike in Hillary is overlooked in other candidates.  What I’ve condemned Hillary for is equally evident in Obama and Edwards.  No one here has said that Hillary is all bad and the other candidates are right in all other positions.  Many are just as critical about Obama, especially regarding war exit plans and immigration.  But Hillary’s record defines her clearly.  Obama and Edwards appear to be on a more accountable, citizen-conscious track than Hillary has ever been.  Ever.  I don’t know how old you are, but I’ve been a very involved, aware citizen throughout many presidencies and I’m very attentive to the issues. 

We can maintain the standards on this site if we discriminate among posters and debate with those who present themselves with substance.  If you have good reasons for supporting Hillary, let’s hear them. 

On this site, the candidate is as good as the people who who can make the case for them.

I agree.  Why would the Clintons even do this?  Here’s Bob Johnson spouting some fiction about the Clintons as civil rights activists--but would a true civil rights activist, a staunch supporter of the values defining the civil rights movement, go to South Carolina and buy these dudes, these overseers, and allow them to say this stuff in the media as her supporters?  This is the way you go about working the vote in the black community? 

This is why I don’t trust the Clintons--they are willing to use anything to make sure they win; nothing is sacred.  Bill Clinton himself did this to win the presidency when he destroyed the Democratic progressive heart of the party to paint himself as more Republican.  He is why we have George Bush as president, but you’ve heard me make this case before.

Even Dick Morris, whom I detest but who worked for the Clintons for a long time, admits this is how the Clintons work it. 

The civil rights movement in this country is sacred ground that I don’t like to see defiled or appropriated or twisted--not by the Clintons, not by Bob Johnson, not by some UTs in SC who are all to willing to reap all the benefits of others’ blood sacrifice and at the same time sell out their people’s votes to keep their job. 

Her doing this was disrespectful.  Don’t get me started.  She needs to be put on blast, called out big time.

Why doesn’t someone ask her about this and show this videotape at next presidential debate?  Think it would get to the podium if I submitted it to MSNBC as my question?  We’ll see.

• By the way, the Huffington link cyrena was avoiding discussing was at the top of the page In this article being discussed (hopefully, uhh)....”

Chalmers,
I’m not AVOIDING discussing anything, as I still don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Let’s go through this again, very briefly. You posted a comment, early on. My own read of it led me to think that maybe you hadn’t bothered to actually READ the entire thing. Ya know like where it says…READ MORE? So, I asked you that. DID YOU READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE?

You responded that you hadn’t had time (or whatever) to check the ‘details’, but you directed me back to the same post, where you had pasted some stuff from yet another article. (a speech if I recall), and suggested that I should read that, before responding to your comments.

So, me being in a cooperative enough state of mind, I did go back and read your comments, yet again. I didn’t find anything new or different in them than I did the first time, which is when I’d asked you if you’d actually read the entire article. However I did post a more lengthy response to your comments, (the same comments) and that was that.

So, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about now either, but there IS a difference between me ‘avoiding’ something or someone, and simply IGNORING that thing or person.

This is NOT the only article on this site, nor is the site the only source for my news. So, when I’m done with something, I move on, unless there’s some particularly interesting or engaging discussion going, and quite often there is. I don’t have to comment on each and every thing that somebody says here, and I don’t have any contractual agreement to respond to YOU. I try to, when circumstances would make it appropriate, but this isn’t the ONLY thing I spend my time on Chalmers. And quite frankly, some things interest me more than others.

I’m not all that interested in Hillary Clinton, other than to the extent that I’m a conscientious citizen/voter, so I’d like to know as much about ALL of the candidates as I can. Hillary has an advantage in that respect, (or it could be a disadvantage) because she’s been around so damn long. So, I already KNOW a whole bunch about Hillary Clinton.
That’s not to say that ‘new stuff’ might not become available, that could change my overall view of her as a presidential candidate, but so far, that hasn’t happened, despite the best efforts on the parts of you and others. Matter-of-fact, sometimes you all make it even WORSE for her. (like you come up with stuff I didn’t know before, and it ain’t good).

Still, there’s no reason for me to spend an out of proportion amount of time talking about Hillary. Ya wanna talk about Dennis Kucinich? Or maybe John Edwards? Or even Gravel? Well then, maybe I could get more involved. But I suspect that I pretty much know whatever I need to know about Hillary at this point, and if I don’t – I’m sure you’ll keep us all up to date. That doesn’t necessarily require a response from me each and every time you write something. And, I’m not on yours or anyone else’s payroll.

So, whatever it is at the top page of the article, I missed it, and I’m not going back to it now. OK? No doubt there will be future opportunities for us to argue at length, about any given thing. But as a general rule, I tend not to get bogged down with itsy-bitsy petty stuff, that generally has no bearing on the overall question of whatever we’re talking about. And, the discussion ALWAYS includes the entire forum, and not just you.

Cyrena:

Nice try.  First, re Krugman:

“Paul Krugman is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University...He earned a Ph.D. from MIT in 1977 and taught at Yale, MIT, UC Berkeley, the London School of Economics, and Stanford University before joining the faculty of Princeton University, where he has been since 2000...Krugman is well known in academia for his work in trade theory, which provides a model in which firms and countries produce and trade because of economies of scale...”

Yes, he is an economist.  A very highly respected one, too.

As for “An example of your disinformation and inappropriate responses to everything, is the piece by Bill Boyarsky. He wrote this one on Obama’s vagueness, and he also wrote the one on “The Battleground of New Hampshire” which was attributed to Truthdig as the source publication, though I haven’t seen that one actually posted here.”

Did you actually READ what I said?  Here is my quote: “while there is only ONE article critical of or slanted against Obama?”

I was talking about the Boyarsky article, so, yes, I DID include it in my calculations.  But since the other article you mention is not on the “home page” - which is what I SPECIFICALLY noted I was referring to - it does not count.

I was making a specific statement about the home page at a specific time.  And my statement remains 100% correct.

As for my being on Hillary’s payroll, or part of her campaign, or a disinformation specialist, or anything else, the mere repetition of something does not make it true.

And your repetitions are becoming legend.

Peace.

Michael:

Two things demand comment here.

First, you say, “After the attacks, who pursued the one simple question, “Why did they attack us?” No one!”

You’re joking, right?  Because that was the ONLY question ANYONE, and particularly the government, pursued - and repeated the answer ad nauseam: “They attacked us because they hate our freedom, and our way of life.” That line became a propagandistic mantra, and was heard for months - years! - after 9/11.  And it is still heard.

The question that ONLY the 9/11 Truthers were asking was the FAR more important one: Who benefitted from 9/11?  THAT question was NEVER asked by the government, or the government’s bought and paid for supporters in the scientific community who provided the hopelessly flawed evidence the makes up the whitewash 9/11 Commission Report.

As for your article, I’m sorry to say I find it weak at best, shoddy and hopelessly biased journalism at worst.  Indeed, almost the entire article is ad hominem: you rarely address the actual points that the 9/11 Truthers are making, preferring “guilt by association” character assassination of some of the researchers.

As well, you make absurd - to say nothing of completely insupportable - broad-brush statements like “all [truthers] blame Israel for the attacks of 9/11 (and everything else).” I have been in the 9/11 Truth movement for over three years, and I have met relatively FEW Truthers who take this line.

What is clear is that you approached your article - and seem to approach the entire issue - with an attitude of “I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.”

That is your prerogative, of course.  But it will not make you any more supportably conversant on the issue.

Peace.

Maani,

Only YOU ‘count’ the number of articles referencing one or the other of them, and then YOU decide that they are ‘biased’ or ‘slanted’ in one direction or the other.

I don’t happen to see them that way. There are certainly MORE articles on Hillary, (at least at the moment) but journalism is journalism, and these are a variety of journalists/reporters writing this stuff, and submitting it to Truthdig. Most are regular reporters, Robert Scheer is one of the editors and publishers, and he obviously writes columns as well, along with the other columnists. No doubt they decide which of those they will put out, and which they don’t, but I refuse to believe they are so petty as to sit there and deliberate about what seems ‘slanted’ more or less to any one particular persons side, positively or negatively. YOU’RE the only one as petty and myopic as to come to such a conclusion. (although admittedly Chalmers likes to go into his routine rages and tantrums on Scheer as well, like if he himself writes and examines every single word published on the site…who the hell has time?)

An example of your disinformation and inappropriate responses to everything, is the piece by Bill Boyarsky. He wrote this one on Obama’s vagueness, and he also wrote the one on “The Battleground of New Hampshire” which was attributed to Truthdig as the source publication, though I haven’t seen that one actually posted here. (I read it on another website) So, I posted the link here, and you responded that they were identical pieces. THEY ARE NOT. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010908E.shtml
That makes you a liar at worse, and a disinformation specialist at best.

Then, somewhere else in one of these threads, you post a link to a Paul Krugman article, (he is a favorite for me) and you identify him as an ECONOMIST. Well Maani, he is NOT an ‘economist’. He is a journalist/columnist who writes on a variety of topics, and there is no ‘slant’ to them, since journalists, to a greater or lesser degree, simply report what these is to report. Yes, some obviously include their own opinions, which they are entitled to do.

But YOU, simply make shit up. YOU decided that these columns and the website in general is ‘slanted’. And, on that same home page, (or at least on the article pages themselves) there is a generously provided LONG list of other blogs and sites for news and commentary, which you can access. So, why don’t you just STFU, and go bother somebody else for a while, if you’re having such problems with the content on this site?

Because so far, all you’ve done is try to blow smoke up everybody’s ass, giving out misleading innuendos, just for the sake of hearing yourself talk/type, and seeing all of your BS in print. And the publication that you’re complaining about, (this one) is generous enough to allow you to post the garbage, because they DON’T have to.

You have issues. So, go PAY somebody to help you deal with them.

Well John this is clearly off topic and I apologize to this board, but since you’ve asked(and have no doubt read my article) Here’s my(final)response:

Our plundering of world oil (with Britain or without), has been going on long before 9/11. The alliances of the power elite have been going on for considerably longer and know no boundaries or borders. They transcend national origins.

That said, it is evident our actions abroad over long periods of time is what truly led us(and Britain) to our respective 9/11’s. Years of collusion from an economic standpoint, the overthrowing of governments who wouldn’t play ball with our economic hit men, the prompting up of dictators to oppress their own people for US special interests, combined with blatant military support of Israel to suppress the Palestinians and their neighbors are what really led to 9/11. These matters are not theoretical. Our biggest mistake is in our failure to realize it.

If there were any black flag operations going on, they were happening in the craniums of the neocon right who ignored clear warnings of an attack while bearing in mind the need for a new pearl harbor to enable their radical, military/corporate based ideology. But this of course is speculative and non-provable, just as are your statements “we” orchestrated the event for Britain or that the British government bombed its own citizenry to make it look good! It also tends to dampen the reality that for at least a century and beyond, our actions abroad have caused human suffering on an unimaginable scale. Here is where the true black flag is rising from.

To admit our multinational corporations were the problem would mean an end to their unfettered, lucrative exploitations abroad(and here too). That is why this angle, the real reasons for the 9/11 attacks, will never be explored?!

After the attacks, who pursued the one simple question, “Why did they attack us?” No one! Instead all we were left with is the report of the 9/11 Commission that essentially blames no one and told us nothing, the bull pulpit propaganda from Bush that says, they simple hate freedom and our way of life… end of question and the speculations of conspiracy theorists who are basically saying we attacked ourselves and were not attacked in retribution by people we’ve exploited for generations.

Well John, I think there’s more to it than that, though you’re on the right track. I see it more as right wingers being appointed by the right wingers in the FCC who were appointed by the radical right wingnuts in the white house to make public broadcasting more “fair and balanced” and we all know what fair and balanced means to that crew....Silencing the opposition! As you know, that’s why Moyer’s got fired. On a positive note, lots of people just like us raised enough hell to bring him back and against insurmountable odds, we won. So perhaps there is some truth in the saying, “Hope springs eternal.” Let’s hope so!

This just in: Race and Gender in Presidential Politics: A Debate between Gloria Steinem and Melissa Harris-Lacewell. I think it adds to our current conversation and brings with it new and interesting perspectives.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/14/race_and_gender_ in_presidential_politics

We are in complete agreement with the 9/11 Commission but frankly and in my view, it is doubtful the 9/11 for Truth movement will ever give us anything beyond theorizations. Not that I believe we shouldn’t investigate mind you. But sometimes the answers we’re looking for are right under our noses. The only thing we truly do know for a fact is that Bush and company ignored those warnings and the only way we’ll ever discover the truth is if Bush tells us he was either a complete bumbling idiot or he intentionally allowed it to happen. We all know pigs will fly first. 

Also you didn’t touch on my comments that did have to do with this current thread, the comments you made that the Clinton’s are complicit and have lost the moral high ground. This makes me believe that you in fact are not a Clinton supporter even though you portend to be one.

As for research into 9/11 and particularly its movement, I’ve done a whole lot of investigating and in fact even wrote an article about it. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_michael__07103 0_questioning_9_2f11_and.htm

As a firm seeker of the truth, I see it in the same light as the anti-immigration movement and as a general distraction from the true realities. You might say I even see it as a manufactured entity geared to pit the left against itself or in the case of immigration, the working class against the working class. Meanwhile the real issues, like our foreign policy, the WTO and NAFTA are moved to the back pages and remain obscured.

Although I in fact admire some of the folks involved in the 9/11 for Truth movement, I find many others far less desirable and in fact downright sinister.

“Exhaustive and continuing” are the key words here and while we exhaustively continue, so does NAFTA, the WTO and our foreign policy, the real culprits behind the crime.

I dunno Tony, at least about the part with women putting Hillary in. It’s true that the majority of the electorate are women, (my how things have changed – since we haven’t even had the vote that long, relatively speaking of course).

Still, the demographics of women voters have to be considered as well. Young women are not so likely to vote for Hillary, and middle-aged women, (here again, depending on all of the socio-economic factors) aren’t a ‘given’ for a Hillary vote either. As a middle-aged woman myself, I would take ANY of the other DEMOCRATIC candidates over Hillary, because we DO look at the issues that are of most concern to us, and Hillary is not addressing them. In short, more progressive women are not likely to support Hillary. And here again, I’m talking about progressive Democrats, from progressive geographical areas.

In reality, it’s all mixed-up from even a decade ago, when I might have voted for her myself. I’ve noted before, that the ‘experience’ she’s using as a main focus for her merit, can indeed work both ways. ‘Experience’ by its very nature, also means ‘history’ and it can work for one, or against one, depending on what that ‘history’ happens to be.
There are millions within the electorate (men and women) who pay little attention to politics or the workings of the government, other than every 4 years when they vote in a general election. They pay little attention to the actual issues, or the candidates’ position on them. In short, they don’t connect the dots necessarily. Rather, they wait until about now, as these campaigns kick into full force, and then they are guided far more by the rhetoric and the selling of the candidate, than anything substantive.

Based on that, (which is pretty typical for American voters) Hillary will get a portion of the middle-aged women’s vote, and those who lean to a more conservative and traditional mind-set. But for those progressive women who actually do pay close attention, she is simply not the choice. So for some, her ‘history’ as a female political operative in a ‘royalty’ or ‘monarchy’ type mind set, will be enough to get her vote. These are the ones who only pay superficial attention to things, every four years. But, for progressive women, (of any age) who pay attention all of the time, they will note, (as Liza has) that Hillary’s only real measurable ‘experience’ has come since she became a Senator in 2000. Since 2000, Hillary doesn’t have any ‘experience’ that shows any ability to unite the Dems, or advance any progressive agenda. In short, she hasn’t done ANYTHING to distinguish herself from any other candidate running. In fact, if we study her activity ONLY from that perspective, just in the past 7 years, we see that at best, she’s done nothing to stymie the destruction, and more often than not, she has supported the repugs in their trashing of all that made us a supposed republic guided by democracy and the rule of law.

So, for conscientious female voters, who DO pay attention, she’s not the choice.

Now, if times were different, and we weren’t on the brink of total destruction, and everything was peachy, and we had only to pay attention to what outfits the first Lady wore, or how the ‘royal family’ presented themselves, then yeah…it might be a fine first ‘novelty’ to have a female president. (It’s embarrassing how backward we are, that we’ve never had a female president) But for now, since she’s the ONLY female to choose from, that’s gonna have to wait, because there’s real work to be done, and she can’t do it. And it is HER ‘history/experience’ that proves that. She’s had 7 years to advance an agenda other than what the gangsters have forced upon us, and she’s not done anything to that end.

Will we ever get any relief from the Clintons

Boggs:

It is dishonest, to say nothing of insupportable, to suggest that Obama is some sort of political angel who has not and does not engage in “negative” campaigning, even if it has generaly been more subtle (though it is clearly no longer so).

That aside, if Truthdig wants to throw its support behind a particular candidate, that is their prerogative.  However, let them simply come out and say it, instead of propagandistically serving as an extension of Obama’s campaign.

Peace.

Michael:

Although this discussion is more apropos on the 9/11 thread, let me just make two comments.

First, I’m not sure how much research you have done on 9/11, but I have spent over three years engaged in some of the most extensive research of anyone; I have read dozens of books and hundreds of articles, seen dozens of videos, been to hundreds of websites, and spoken to dozens of witnesses, researchers anbd others - on BOTH sides of the issue.  At the risk of sounding hopelessly self-aggrandizing, I am considered something of a “resource” re 9/11 alternative theories, providing info to 9/11 web sites and individual researchers when they need informed, even-handed info.

In my opinion, formed after this exhaustive - and continuing - study, there is no question in my mind that our government was indeed complicit in the attacks, either via the “LIHOP” theory (they knew about it in advance but “let it happen on purpose,” much like Pearl Harbor) or the “MIHOP” theory (some individuals and/or agencies were complicit in the planning and execution of the attacks).  If you would like to discuss/debate the 9/11 issue, I am happy to do so, but this is not the place.

Second, given the above, I am not suggesting that the Clintons were directly complicit either in the actions themselves or the cover-up.  I am merely suggesting that ANYONE who was either “in the know” re LIHOP or MIHOP prior to OR after the attacks is indirectly complicit through their silence.  This would include not only the Clintons, but, according to numerous sources, quite a number of people in both Washington and the media. (Indeed, according to one of my sources, an aide to a member of the House, belief in the LIHOP theory (and to a slightly lesser degree, the MIHOP theory) is actually quite rampant in DC.)

As for the 9/11 Commission Report, it is a bigger whitewash than the Warren Commission Report.  Not only is it rife with factual incorrections, omissions, distortions, etc., but, as you imply, the commissioners themselves were rife with enormous conflicts of interest, and the executive director of the Commission was a Bush neocon crony, Philip Zelikow.

The main reason why people have a problem believing that 9/11 could have been a false flag op is not that they don’t know about false flag ops (though, of course, many don’t), but rather that most people simply cannot wrap their minds around the possibility that their government murdered 3,000 of its own citizens in order to (primarily) advance a political agenda.  Yet if people knew their history better, they would know that this is not as far-fetched as they believe it to be.

Peace.

Maani,
Just my opinion, but I think the reason there is so much more negative stuff against the Hill is because she gives so much more negative crap to report.
I saw when Obama was minding his own business, and putting forth his view of hope and change for this country and along comes the wolf (in female dressing) and starts trying to blow down his dream!
She truly is a cunningly sly ole fox.

Then you should sign off with “war.”

Maani you have me a bit perplexed by your last statement. The Clinton’s being complicit in 9/11? Losing the moral high ground? That doesn’t sound like a very positive or supportive Clinton stance to me. In fact you are supporting the argument that Bush and Clinton are one and the same. If you are arguing in favor of Clinton, as I was led to believe you were, this is hardly the way to go about it. I’d also like to point out that Bill Clinton warned Bush of Osama bin Laden and as we all know, Bush chose to ignore those warnings along with the warnings of several other nations and their respective intelligence agencies around the world. The bottom line is the Clinton’s weren’t in charge when 9/11 happened so how could they possibly be involved in its cover up? Also the 9/11 Commission, a handpicked joke, decided to blame everyone(including Clinton) and no one(taking Bush and company entirely off the hook).

As for the 9/11 Truth movement, they will never find any truth or even evidence. All they will do is continue to cloud the real issues with far fetched, hysterical and unprovable acclamations, pointing their fingers at everyone as complicit while the real culprits, same as always will go on with business as usual.

For those of you who believe our government enacted the attacks on 9/11, only in a sense are you right. We didn’t hire the terrorists, we didn’t do a black opts that would have required a big portion of the government to have been complicit. What we did was meddle in foreign affairs for far too long both militarily and economically and our blatant actions abroad finally caught up with us. The only underhandedness we all can clearly see from this is that Bush knew of the threats and chose to ignore them. Our intelligence agencies didn’t fail us. What did fail us was the current leadership with an agenda that came right out of the project for a new American century. We all know another pearl harbor was necessary to enact this radical ideology and a new pearl harbor was what we got. It enabled the blatant corporatism we are currently suppressed by and there is no doubt in my mind that is precisely why Bush/Cheney ignored those warnings. It was precisely what they were waiting for(for years) and anyone who has an inkling of our meddling abroad knew a 9/11 was only a matter of time. Frankly I’m surprised it didn’t happen sooner.

It’s a sad story, all right.

Perhaps we should take a better look as to why Johnson so readily caved in to the civil rights movement. For one he escalated the war in Vietnam. The streets at home were turning into as much of a battlefield as were the jungles in the Far East. Also most of the legislation he passed was already on the table with Kennedy who some believe would have stopped the war as well as promoted civil rights.  Also let’s not forget that the peace movement and the civil rights movement became one.

Johnson was the first president who “borrowed money” from social security to finance the government and the war and welfare, replacing cold cash with treasury notes. The process has gone on with every other president ever since and is most predominant today under Bush. Now social security is endangered(only if Bush defaults on repaying those treasury notes) and civil liberties, not only for blacks but for everyone has been beaten into non existence. Welfare for the rich has replaced welfare for the poor and the MIC gets all the money.

Y’know, maybe it took me a while to catch on here, but has anyone noticed that, on the Truthdig home page, there are no less than EIGHT articles critical of or slanted against Hillary, while there is only ONE article critical of or slanted against Obama?

It’s a sad day when even the so-called alternative media - and “left” media, at that - is so blatantly partisan.

Peace.

JB:

You say, “The biggest fear of these human devils is a Clinton might expose the real criminals in 9/11.”

If only!!  But the problem is that once the Clintons became tacitly (if tangentially) complicit in it by their silence, they lost any moral high ground they might have had later, and would only be exposing themselves as well (even if only indirectly).

No, we will have to rely on the 9/11 Truth movement to find any “smoking gun” that might exist, or to otherwise wake people up and get them to see past their fears.

Peace.

No moreso than an Obama supporter, or an Edwards supporter, or a supporter of anyone with the exception of Kucinich and Paul, since every single candidate except those two have very similar plans re Iraq (and Iran).

Peace.  (Yes, peace.)

#By Tony Wicher, January 13: “Obama people and Kucinich people too have started a cottage industry of digging up dirt on Hillary, too...”

That bunch of shit-throwing monkeys was encouraged to start right here on Truthdig in an interview last year with Kucinich.

By Maani and P.T., January 13: “Re: Re: Doug:Wow! You don’t go.... taken in the context of craps odds as a whole, BC’s statement remains correct...”

Huh???

By the way, the Huffington link cyrena was avoiding discussing was at the top of the page In this article being discussed (hopefully, uhh).

#By Michael Shaw, January 13: “...Huffington promotes the idea of progressive leadership, on the other she refuses to run against her good friend and republicrat Diane Feinstein. Supporting Feinstein and mocking Hillary.... doesn’t make much sense… during the race for Governor here in California.... Huffington stated openly if Feinstein ran she wouldn’t. Hell! Even Arnold is more progressive than Feinstein is! So is Hillary...!”

Interesting, very interesting! All in California - and Truthdig is in California, too........

#By Tony Wicher, January 13: RE “Neither Kennedy nor Johnson would have had the imagination to initiate a civil rights act without the leadership and pressure of the black community, for whom King, X, Carmichael, Vernon Johns, et al provided leadership” - Did anything Hillary said deny this? I didn’t hear it...”

I don’t understanfd what the problem is either, TW. Hillary’s said something for her own reasons but BO has made an issue of it just as cyrena did here today merely to take advantage of it as being the only opportunity he has (by distortion, uhh)......

Clinton defended her remark about King, made the day before the New Hampshire primary, in a sometimes contentious appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday morning. She said she was responding to a speech Obama made comparing himself to both John F. Kennedy and to King, and she elaborated on her view of King’s role as a change agent.

She stood by former president Bill Clinton’s observation last week that the central tenet of Obama’s campaign is “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” saying it referred only to Obama’s Iraq war position and not his standing as a candidate... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2 008/01/13/AR2008011303624.html?hpid=topnews PP 1 + 2.

Manni, it seems like a Hillary supporter should sign off with the word “war,” not the word “peace.”

Seriously, Arianna calling the Clinton campaign out for dirty tricks is *hilarious.* Why isn’t Obama being held to the same standard?  Obama and Clinton are political twins.

Cyrena:

You said, “See what I mean?  So Tony, now YOU’RE a ‘new kid on the block’ since Maani here is speaking for ‘those of us’ who have been on these threads for a week or so.  Yep...this is what I mean. I was actually tempted to laugh out loud, except of course, that it’s so terribly pathetic.”

How nice of you to drop by just to spread more of your integrity and goodwill.  The above just shows how myopic and limited your analysis is.

By “those of use” I meant those of us NOT bashing Hillary at every possible opportunity.

And “see what I mean” about what?  The question is a non sequitur, since you had not said anything prior to which you might be referring.

As for “pathetic,” this seems to be one of your favorite epithets, since you use it quite alot.  And of course, it is no surprise that you are “tempted to laugh out loud,” since this is the only way you know how to respond when you have no supportable response to someone, or nothing constructive to say.

For someone who accused me of “revealing” myself via my words, you are apparently even better at it than I am…

Peace.

MackTN, I can only shake my head reading these comments:

“...“Then everybody else on the ballot is doomed. Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he’s black and he’s at the top of the ticket. We’d lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything. I’m a gambling man. I love Obama. But I’m not going to kill myself.”…

Yes, I know the piney woods well. And, I see that little has changed. Kind of makes us all wonder what went wrong, eh? All the blood and deaths from the heros of the Civil Rights Movement. What happened? Did we learn NOTHING from that?

Why does it seem to me, that this attitude would be more prevalent among that part of the nations’ African-American population that was far less involved in the Civil Rights Movement. Like Texas, (and there, it’s pretty much the same, but that doesn’t necessarily surprise me, because they were just never involved much).

But, I don’t understand this at all, coming from an area that is in the heart of it all.

Still, you’ve given a realistic enough account of the reality of it, and I admit it’s pretty much what I’ve experienced in my own time spent in the areas there, including surrounding states. Still, just reading this guy’s comments really shakes me up.

But, if you think about it, this is pretty much just the American way now, eh? Doesn’t it seem like regardless of race, or even class, the majority are all about ME, without any knowledge or recognition of the basic fact that in the final shakeout, the ME isn’t gonna save their asses at all? Don’t they GET that? I mean, at what point is their ‘power’ gonna go ‘poof’ anyway? Or, more realistically, hasn’t it already gone ‘poof’? These bozo’s only THINK they have some sort of ‘power’. When the bottom falls out, it’s not the least bit selective about whom or what it sucks in.

But then, I’m from earthquake country. So, I know these things. Perceived ‘protection’ will get ‘em every time. It’s just only a MATTER of time.

There’s a racist vote, an African American vote, a feminist vote, a male chauvinist vote, and who knows which one is bigger? Harold Ford is sure it’s the racist vote. He thinks having a black man at the top of the ticket will doom the Democrats all the way down the line. That’s really sad. Maybe he’s right, though. Hillary probably has a better chance. After all, women are not a minority - they are a majority of the electorate. There is a good chance that this time the feminist vote will be stronger than the male chauvinist vote. My bet is that women are going to put Hillary in.

See what I mean?

So Tony, now YOU’RE a ‘new kid on the block’ since Maani here is speaking for ‘those of us’ who have been on these threads for a week or so.

Yep...this is what I mean. I was actually tempted to laugh out loud, except of course, that it’s so terribly pathetic.

“What somewhat surprises me is the blatant complicity of news organizations in reporting favorable stories by cleaning up the remarks.  Neither Kennedy nor Johnson would have had the imagination to initiate a civil rights act without the leadership and pressure of the black community, for whom King, X, Carmichael, Vernon Johns, et al provided leadership.  I don’t discount the courage it took Johnson to sign, but a whole lot of black people--and whites, too--lost their lives and livelihoods to make it happen.  We were hardly waiting passively for someone to rescue us; we materialized it making a president’s signature inevitable and nearly pro forma.”
---------------------------------------------------
Did anything Hillary said deny this? I didn’t hear it. I found those protestations by black Obama supporters to be just another example of partisan dirt-throwing. Everybody criticizes the dirt-throwing while doing it just as much as the people they criticize for it, which makes it higher-order dirt-throwing. There is no end to it. 

And did any of

Maani I’d like to state for the record that although I mentioned Hillary’s remarks about seizing Pakistan’s nukes, I don’t think she is a bad candidate. I don’t believe she is a crook or liar either. I do believe however she is being poorly advised(as is Obama), at least in this case and I also realize the politicking(folly) behind acting tough on national security matters.

Of all the candidates, Hillary is probably the smartest and best qualified. That said, no one out there in the “have more” world fear anyone more than John Edwards, a guy who spend his entire life suing the very corporations that feel Hillary is far more approachable to than he(or any other democratic candidate) is. He’s their worst nightmare and thus, like Kucinich, is ignored by the corporate media and for that matter, the DNC as well!

Although I shall remain loyal to Kucinich to the bitter end and believe me, I’ve been batting this around in my head for a long time, if Hilary gets the nod, she’ll get my vote as will any other democratic candidate. She may be more easily approached by the MIC than the others, but she’ll also be far more receptive to progressives than any republican will be. And if Nader runs, as he has threatened to do, make no mistake, we’ll have republicans in there forever.

Maani, if you’re going to call me disingenuous, point out how.  You don’t seem to know much more about craps than Bill Clinton (shame on him, he grew up in Hot Springs), and you are surfing the Net for info.  If one takes full odds at a joint that offers 100X odds, the house edge drops well below 1.4%.  Email that to Wikipedia and tell them you learned it from an expert.

Well Maani, all of them are being advised by members and former members of the MIC and it shows, at least in this instance. It also suggests that just like the MIC, they have only one idea in foreign diplomacy concerning the so called war on terror..., military force. By suggesting the US(and Britain) take control of a sovereign nation’s nukes, we are placing a state that is already on shaky ground on even more shaky ground and let’s not forget, their tentative leader has a button to push. Putting this kind of added pressure on a guy like Musharraf would be the same as doing it to Saddam if indeed he did have nuclear weapons(something we knew he didn’t). If he did have them, there is no doubt in my mind he would have used them. Could we expect any less from a dictator like Musharraf who actually has them? I think not. Apparently so too does Washington who suddenly agreed Pakistan has the situation well in hand.

Clearly, Hillary’s patter has turned to trash talk how that she’s out of the north woods and enters the piney woods of THE SOUTH, where the people and the politics are...different.  Bill and Hill have played paintball in these woods before; they know how to hit the targets.  Period.

Who is her audience, and what is her objective?  Here in the south, billhill has a loyal black constituency (remember, they bought 2 black state congressmen over a year ago, putting them on their payroll for pr duties; below is a link and lede for the story--the video is outrageous!

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=46939

Charleston Senator Robert Ford and Hopkins Senator Darrell Jackson, who are both African-American, told The Associated Press recently that they are supporting Hillary Clinton, and that they believe she is the only Democrat who can win.

But it’s Ford’s comments about Obama--the Illinois Senator who’s hoping to become the first African-American to become president--that have caused some controversy.

Ford says he likes Obama, but thinks his candidacy would hurt Democrats. Ford says every Democrat on the ticket would lose with Obama as the presidential candidate because he is black.

Here is his quote, from the Associated Press:

“Then everybody else on the ballot is doomed. Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he’s black and he’s at the top of the ticket. We’d lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything. I’m a gambling man. I love Obama. But I’m not going to kill myself.”

The election machinery in the local govts here are controlled by traditional, old-time Dems, power brokers who have been handing out goodies to their constituents to ensure certain results.  NPR ran an interview with a black SC activist who conceded the Clintons’ connection with local black people--still strong after Obama won Iowa.  Just because southern black people supported the civil rights movement does not automatically make them progressives.  And now that many of them are in positions of power, they are grateful and loyal to the traditional Democratic structure and the Clintons’ represent that down here.  They are loathe to put their power at risk, and the Clintons will play hardball, both behind the scenes and by proxy. 

Hillary’s objective is not to run for president; right now, it is to win February 5 and say whatever she needs to say to get there. 

What somewhat surprises me is the blatant complicity of news organizations in reporting favorable stories by cleaning up the remarks.  Neither Kennedy nor Johnson would have had the imagination to initiate a civil rights act without the leadership and pressure of the black community, for whom King, X, Carmichael, Vernon Johns, et al provided leadership.  I don’t discount the courage it took Johnson to sign, but a whole lot of black people--and whites, too--lost their lives and livelihoods to make it happen.  We were hardly waiting passively for someone to rescue us; we materialized it making a president’s signature inevitable and nearly pro forma. 

But Hillary’s not after my vote--she’s not directing those remarks to me.  And, of course, after all this trash talk has been said and done it’s job, she can claim being misquoted.

Tony:

For those of us who have been on these threads for a week or so, you are stating the obvious.

So...given that you are one of the “new kids on the block,” all I can say is: welcome to anti-Hillary central!  Indeed, some of the self-proclaimed Democrats here could give some lessons to the GOP in Hillary-bashing!

Peace.

P.T.:

I stand (actually, sit) corrected re what Cooper said.  However, you are being slightly disingenuous here.  It is true that on one or two possible bets, the house has only about a 1.4% advantage.  However, of the 18 other possible bets, the smallest advantage is 2.4%, and the largest 16.9%, with an approximate average (including your two) of 8.5%.

Thus, taken in the context of craps odds as a whole, BC’s statement remains correct.

Peace.

Obama people and Kucinich people too have started a cottage industry of digging up dirt on Hillary, too. What a bunch of shit-throwing monkeys we are!

troublesum:

Re Hillary’s plan to being bringing home the troops, you say, “Why 60 days??  Did she pull that number out of a hat?  A brigade per month??  That gives her a lot of time to change her mind.  At the rate of a brigade per month that gives her 2 1/2 years to get them out.  This is about as believable as Nixon’s “secret plan” to end the Viet Nam war.  How can you be so naive, Manni?”

Actually, I’m not sure where she got “60 days” from: perhaps it will give her something to crow about re her “first 100 days.”

However, my broader point was that Obama’s plan (as well as Edwards’) is the same: bringing the troops home “a brigade or two per month,” giving a timetable, as you say, of ~2.5 years.

Thus, if you are going to be accurate, you should have said, “...that gives ANY of them a lot of time to change their minds.”

As for whether I am naive, as I have said before: our role in the democratic process is to listen to the candidates and vote for the one we believe will DO what they say they will do during the campaign. We cannot KNOW if any or all of them are making promises they don’t intend to keep; we can only hope they do what they say they will.  If they do, we get the government, and “changes,” we want.  If not, we vote them out during the next election cycle.

So, no; I am not naive.  I am well aware that Hillary may “change her mind.” But then, so may Obama or Edwards - or, indeed, ANY candidate.

Peace.

Alas, woe is us!

I disagree that Hillary’s position is similar to the other two.

Obama has clearly stated he would unilaterally send troops into Pakistan if he felt he had actionable intelligence on OBL or Al Qaeda, and Musharraf did not act.  Bush has engaged in similar saber-rattling, including, as you note, plunking the CIA (and, by the way, special forces as well) in, with or without Musharraf’s approval.

Hillary’s proposal is simply a security oversight for making sure that Pakistan’s nukes do not get into the wrong hands in the event of a coup or other action.  Nor has she proposed that it be done with or without Musharraf’s participation.  Thus far, he is against it, and she has made no suggestion that it would (or even could) be done without him.

Thus, Hillary’s position is a far cry from that of Bush or Obama.  She has NEVER suggested unilateral placing of troops, CIA, special forces, etc., with or without Musharraf’s approval.

Peace.

Marc Cooper never says the player has an advantage over the house in craps.  However, the minimal house edge he is talking about is confined to particular bets (pass line and come bets with full odds).  As a former crap dealer, I would point out that one can actually get slightly better odds than the bet he mentions—that would require betting on the “don’t” side and laying odds.  But most players don’t like betting that way even if they know how to do it.

In addition, card counters can get an edge over the house at blackjack, which is why the casinos kick them out.

Re: Huffington dishonestly re-interprets Hillary’s words....

By cyrena, January 13: “the dude in Taiwan, and how he must have messed up, I guess I just don’t quite understand the connection to Hillary’s dirty tricks, if in fact they are. (and yes, they sound like it to me… Barak Obama...

Oh, do you really expect people to believe you on that, cyrena? Based on what you said, you seem to be deliberately distorting the issue still by making opposite ststements to what was said even though you don’t know anything about the dude in Taiwan..... or so you said.

I had mentioned Chen because his ways were so much like Obama’s and you could obviously see this so you have gone out of your way to deny it by such miserable manufacturings. No wonder, then, that people neither trust or like lawyers, even you, cyrena, uhh.

Again, with Gordon Brown, you have set out to ignore what you don’t want to hear by simply being too lazy to check the link on the post I was replying to. It was