Jesus, Cockburn, how obviously are you going to play the schizophrenia card?

(NOTE: There is an error in the following. Please see the correction in the comments below.)

Andrew Cockburn, I was going to challenge you to a debate, but I see now you do an even better job of dismantling yourself.

One week you attack 9/11 skepticism using every cheap shot worthy of a Limbaugh, reducing it all to a laughable caricature that you yourself must recognize as unfair. (The families who lobbied for the 9/11 Commission ended up condemning it? Really? How would a busy fellow like you know that?)

The next week, you try to compensate - for the lost subscriptions, perhaps? - by reaching for the "Art Students," as though the only intelligence agencies who could have known that 9/11 was in the works would have had to be Israeli.

Now you present this great profile of Rumsfeld in the 1990s, the little emperor of a self-appointed Shadow Government who enjoyed nothing more than playing Strangelove in a bunker, firing off all his missiles and killing everyone. (READ MORE...)

You tell me: What does the following passage, taken from Salon's excerpt of Andrew Cockburn's forthcoming biography, tell us about Rumsfeld? Does it not make plausible the idea that a Rumsfeld could easily plan a "strategy of tension" - by orchestrating a 9/11, or planning it as a false-flag attack? In an echo chamber full of his fellow angry paranoids, losing a couple of thousand New Yorkers as the necessary sacrifice before launching an eternal world war would seem like peanuts!


Insofar as the COG games gave the illusion of reality, they taught Rumsfeld and his fellow players some dangerous lessons, particularly when the fall of the Soviet Union induced some changes in the usual scenarios. Although the exercises continued, still budgeted at over $200 million a year in the Clinton era, the vanished Soviets were now customarily replaced by terrorists. The terrorism envisaged, however, was almost always state-sponsored. Terrorists were never autonomous, but invariably acted on behalf of a government. "That was the conventional wisdom," recalled retired air force colonel Sam Gardner, who has designed dozens of war games for the Pentagon and related entities. "Behind the terrorist, there was always something bigger, and the games reflected that."

There were other changes too. In earlier times the specialists selected to run the "shadow government" had been drawn from across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike. But now, down in the bunkers, Rumsfeld found himself in politically congenial company, the players' roster being filled almost exclusively with Republican hawks.

"It was one way for these people to stay in touch. They'd meet, do the exercise but also sit around and castigate the Clinton administration in the most extreme way," a former Pentagon official with direct knowledge of the phenomenon told me. "You could say this was a secret government-in-waiting. The Clinton administration was extraordinarily inattentive, (they had) no idea what was going on."

Excerpted from "Rumsfeld" by Andrew Cockburn. Copyright © 2007 by Andrew Cockburn. Reprinted by permission from Scribner, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Read the full article at

why is this being voted so low?

This is excellent circumstantial evidence.

I have my fans, don't you know?

The current rating indicates two 10s and a zero, which is normal (people rate almost everything as 10s or zeros).

I think certain quarters have trouble with information that displays nuance - am I with the terrorist Cockburns or against them? - or talks about 9/11 as a historical event, rather than a mystic armaggedon of some Ultimate NWO.

By the way, I screwed up, but I shall leave my error in place as a reminder of my own fallibility. The referenced article and book about Rumsfeld is by Andrew Cockburn, the brother of the more famous Alexander. I don't know for sure what he thinks about 9/11.

Alexander was the one who recently attacked 9/11 skeptics using all of the classic debunkers' fallacies and spittle, and then turned around a week or two later to tout (on Amy's show) the re-warmed treatment of the Israeli Art Students by Christopher Ketcham, as though it was the Second Coming.

So the "schizophrenia" point still applies.

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."

the voting system

This is a good piece, as there are plenty of interesting chunks about Rummy in this book. The issue is the name Cockburn. A lot of people, many people who use this website, act like schoolgirls. They see Cockburn and they think: "That's the meanie who said I was stupid...I hate him! Boooo!" and they give the whole article a low vote without reading it. I can't stand how fucking stupid some people are here. Sometimes I wonder if the whole point of this site is to collect 911 Bloggers in one place and make us all stupid, infighting little schoolgirls rather than effective activists. Someone's panties are definitely already in a bunch upon reading this. Go ahead. Give me a low vote you sad pricks.

there has been a polarization lately

but I wouldn't call it stupidity. People have their pet theories, but the community here has gradually taken to some theories more than others.

The rating system obviously lacks nuance. Are we rating the subject of the post, the attitude of the poster towards the subject, or something else? Anything with "Fetzer" in the title gets shat on, even if the poster openly expresses a dislike of Fetzer.

Some people are obviously here to disrupt. I imagine that's why this post had 2 votes and a 4.5 rating when I arrived at it. I gave it a 10, for the reason I stated, and because it certainly didn't deserve 4.5.

While I agree that many disagree on 9/11 blogger

I don't think that the truth is an obvious thing at times.

Especially when we are dealing with the biggest pile of disinformation ever created: The 9/11 "official story".

When we disagree bias can come into play among other things... What I would like to see on 9/11 blogger is more attention to the issues and less focusing on individual users.

And I think it's best to avoid name calling because all that really results in is more name calling. And I'm sure you would agree that this would only make us look like a bunch of "school girls".

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."