9/11 and The Left

Updated to include Michael Moore, Lewis Lapham and others.


Several prominent liberal writers are arguing that 9/11 is a distraction from the fight for liberal causes. Are they right?

Riddle Me This

Before I address that question, let me ask another one:

Q: What do Daniel Ellsberg, Lewis Lapham, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Thom Hartmann, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Marc Crispin Miller, Howard Zinn, Ray McGovern, Robert McChesney, Gore Vidal, Medea Benjamin, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Paul Hawken, David Cobb, Randy Hayes, Ernest Callenbach, Dennis Bernstein, Paul H. Ray, Michael Franti, Janeane Garafalo and Ed Asner all have in common?

A: All of these leading liberal voices question the Bush administration's account of what happened on 9/11.

(See this article and video, this short video, and this article, this short posting, this petition, this book review , this review, and this one).

Moreover, Noam Chomsky is calling for the declassification of 9/11-related documents. Former ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson is dissatisfied with the government's explanation for 9/11. And the former president of the National Lawyers Guild and many other prominent progressive legal scholars question 9/11.

So before you go "representing" the liberal position on 9/11, take a look at what these prominent progressives have said.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Okay, now let's get down to substance.

The administration's false claims linking Iraq and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Iraq-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.

Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since 9/11, the American people have been terrified -- and thus irrational -- based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues -- including withdrawal from Iraq -- until "we get the bad guys".

Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any costs. Thus, the Saddam-911 deception was necessarily a precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.

I Spy

Indeed, the Bush administration is now using 9/11 as an excuse for domestic spying without warrant, and will use 9/11 as an excuse for every other unconstitutional, undemocratic, unAmerican destruction of civil liberties which it takes.


How about war with Iran? That's an important issue for liberals, isn't it? Well, Americans are still terrified about Arabs with weapons. Moreover, since Americans are still largely ignorant about the use of "false flag operations" by governments to justify wars, Americans will fall for a faked provocation. What am I talking about? Well, the National Security Adviser for President Carter recently told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation. Similarly, a current Congressman has said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran". And a progressive member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

In other words, if 9/11 was, in fact, a false flag operation, and that fact is not exposed by the left, then that will enable the neoconservatives to use another faked terror incident in order to justify a war against Iran.

Thus, 9/11 is central for those interested in peace.

The Reality Based Community?

Liberals proudly proclaim the superiority of rationality over propaganda, blind passion and illogic. Right?

If you spend even 5 minutes looking at how completely the government investigations into 9/11 have failed to meet even basic tests of rationality, you will realize that liberals must demand a new, impartial investigation.

Other Liberal Causes

What about other traditional liberal causes? What about global warming? Women's rights? Gay rights? Helping the poor? Other liberal causes? Well, as a blogger from the University of Winnipeg in Canada says:

"[failing to fully address what really happened on 9/11] will only serve to undermine all they would otherwise hope to accomplish -- in terms of the environment and social equity -- and for one fundamental reason: ... it is the war on terror that is the primary "displacement activity" burying progressive causes, not 911 skepticism.

The war on terror is such a potent metanarrative that it is driving a host of policy decisions -- even in an otherwise progressive nation as Canada -- that are sucking resources away from human needs, ecological conservation, climate change prevention and adaptation, poverty alleviation and peacemaking. Until this metanarrative is dismantled and revealed for the lethal and cynical fraud it is and always has been, causes supported by progressives will never be properly addressed.

9/11 may not have changed everything, but until this controversy can be openly addressed in the media and through a more objective investigation, we may be unable to change anything."

Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries. Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans were a generous and good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of other countries by reminding Germans that war is bad and peace is good? Do you imagine you could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights by writing about the desirability of civil liberties?

Of course not! The German people were whipped up into a state of hysteria and fear, because they thought they were under attack by communists, and Poles, and "bad guys" in general. The German's were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader. Without first exposing that the Reichstag fire and Operation Himmler - the two things which were the source and root cause of the German people's fears, and which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power -- the sweeping away of liberal causes by the wave of fear could not be stopped.

Similarly, Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist and Polish terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.

The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time. The German people could have been spared from the horrors inflicted on their nation and the world by the Nazis. And sanity and liberal values could have been saved in 1940's-era Germany.

As stated by a well-known liberal, George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Here's a double-reverse twister for you

Fred Thompson just attacked Harry Reid, saying that he supports the "fringe bloggers" who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. So he gets two for the price of one. He discredits Reid by (falsely) associating him with 9/11 Truth, and makes mainstream Democrats and liberals and gatekeepers like Kos more determined to close off any truth discussion, for fear that they will be the targets of this type of attack.

Well, you’ve heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country’s brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace — calling him “incompetent.” Let me take a few moments to put this in context.
First, Harry Reid voted for the war, like a majority of our legislators. America decided as a nation to free Iraq and the region from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. I have friends, both Democrat and Republican, who questioned the decision at the time, but the Republic made a commitment based on constitutional and democratic procedures. So they are now a hundred percent committed to moving forward in a way that’s best for our country. None of them, by the way, believe surrendering to the forces of terror in Iraq is what’s best for our country.
Harry Reid, though, has taken a different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think we’re the bad guys. This is a place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a home.
And why shouldn’t they think that? Reid has led the attack on the administration, with Nancy Pelosi, charging it lied and tricked America into supporting the war. Ignoring multiple hearings and investigations into pre-war intelligence findings that have debunked this paranoid myth, they accuse an entire administration of conspiracy to trick us into a war.


i LOVE when fools like

i LOVE when fools like Thompson try to turn it into a political issue. why? it exposes more people to the very idea of 9/11 being an inside job(thanks for the plug Fred!) and it gives us the chance to throw back into the faces of whichever side is coming at us the list of prominent names/groups/activists from both sides of the political spectrum who are a part of the 9/11 truth movement. keep it coming Thompson, you fucking moron you. and as far as the Kos's of the world go, they are already in too deep with denial. even if deep down inside they wanted to change course and say "im sorry you guys, you were right about 9/11 and we were wrong" they simply wont until it becomes profitable and "safe" for them to do so. say 9/11 was an inside job or anything close and no more CNN plugs, no more dinners with Reid and other leading Dems, no more influence. we cant depend on the Kos's of the world, we must run them over and make them irrelevent.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I'm not sure I agree

I think the public mindset is still one that can't wrap it's head around the idea of government involvement. There's enough wacky stuff in the IHOP world to give them an excuse to dismiss the whole thing. And unless something else happens to change that, simply giving more exposure to the idea of inside job (especially in the form of a slur like Thompson's) may not add up to progress. It's hard to tell.

its our job to shake the

its our job to shake the public mindset with the truth and the facts as we know them. playing it safe and going slowly is not the way in my opinion.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Unless he's fixed it

this Kos story indicates that he does not know the difference between the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group. WTF?

Kos is stupid

edit: Gaaah... he fixed the headline, but the first paragraph still reads

"Rudy's entire "national security" chops consists of being mayor of a city attacked by terrorists (for him, being in the right place at the right time). Suddenly, he's offered a gift -- to be a member of the 9/11 commission, a chance to truly bone up his national security cred. Yet he blew it off."

Markos is a disgrace. im

Markos is a disgrace. im pretty sure thats not even his real name either, the guy is a fraud on so many levels. i cant wait until the day comes when i can shove his bullshit statements about 9/11 and his censorship policy in his face. same with John from C&L. goddamn cowards.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Thompson was on the Watergate hearings panel....

....so he has first hand conspiratorial examples of the government illegally undermining our democratic republic. A bit disingenuous, isn't he? I mean our government will provably attempt to rig an election (in '72), he took testimony proving it, and government criminality not only ends there, he doesn't even reference it?

Watergate, like the 1934 anti-FDR "Business Plot" attempted coup and Iran/Contra were all documented conspiracies to commit and conspiracies to cover-up. Yet, he throws the "conspiracy" smear around a bit dismissively, doesn't he.....Oh, I forgot, documented conspiracies are subsequently called "scandals" by the "corporate intelligence agency" media.

And, if the government OCT is so bullet-proof, why doesn't someone go on Thom Hartmann (as described in another thread) and debate one of us? So, so telling.....

BTW, has anyone been following the "D.C. Madam" prostitution/john case on Wayne Madsen's site over the last few weeks? Hmmmmm, .....just wondering. Don't know why I mentioned it.....really.....

yep, he knows how effective

yep, he knows how effective it is(the "conspiracy" smear) first hand. did you know Letterman actually qouted that Madsen story a few weeks back in making a joke about Cheney using prostitutes? it was surreal,haha.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Excellent essay

This is one of the most important arguments to butt head on because these are the people we need to convince in order to get over the hump. Far too much time is spent arguing with Bushies. We need to weigh heavily on that middle portion of the population that isn't sure what to think. As I said to Steny Hoyer, as far as my generation is concerned, any direction not towards 9/11 Truth is backwards.

Amy Goodman et al

Washington....good work!. I just watched the Michael Moore-911 impromptu interview with a few seconds of Amy Goodman demurring away from a serious question about building 7. I think what the die-hards on the left are waiting for is something big...like an admission, a video-tape (Moore refers to this in the piece), some major piece of evidence...and that's the irony with their viewpoint...the very pressure and investigative initiative they employ effectively in other areas is dead in the water when it comes to delving into the serious questions around 911. It will be to their dishonor, public embarrassment and loss of clout, when our truth movement does the work for them as it is now doing. All the major misery in the world spins around the unholy deceit the Bush/wall St cabal has woven around 911. Progressive broadcasts and print ring hollow without this core awareness. We are not going away. Our movement is both historic and almost entirely new in the ways it has chosen to resist tyranny.

well said

i believe MM thought again..he's got this film coming out, and he did not want to diss the truthers. As we all know, if he had, the next day he would be Mince Meat on the blogs. So he threw us a bone, a good bone, but just a bone.