I am beginning to think that people like Taibbi and Cockburn, while perhaps not part of a shadowy conspiracy, do value their jobs above principle and act accordingly.

Liberal writers like Taibbi are all for attacking the current administration on all atrocities and violations of civil liberties stemming directly from the administration's relentless misappropriation of 911.

When it comes to the notion that the government might actually have orchestrated the event, however, you have two liberal camps. One very large camp stays mum. Why? They know that speaking out woud endanger their jobs and professional reputations. The other, smaller camp, aggressively attack and smear the movement by focusing on dubious or outright silly theories, rather than some of the more obvious truths. These people also want to keep their jobs, they're just assuming an attack dog role because "somebody's gotta do it," right?

The fact that attacking or ignoring the 911 truth movement is about the ONLY thing both influential libs and conservs seem to agree on speaks volumes about liberal complicity.