Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the classified Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971, supports the claims of 9/11 denialists like University of Wisconsin Lecturer Kevin Barrett (see here and here). The following is quoted from a July 14, 2006 interview with Ellsberg:Interviewer Jack Blood: "I’m gonna take a risk here in asking you this Daniel, in all due respect, have you had a chance to look at this information coming from America’s leading scholars, business’, engineers, etc. who have taken a look now at 9-11 and are now not only questioning what might have happened on 9-11, but really being very direct…."
Daniel Ellsberg: "I have looked at a lot of that and I tell ya, without going into it all, which would take a lot of time, I find some of it very implausible and other parts of it, quite solid. There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen. With subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents. There’s no question that very serious questions have been raised about how much they knew before hand and how much involvement there may have been. Is the administration capable, humanly, psychologically, of engineering such a provocation? Yes. I would say that."
14 comments:
Sneaky old prick. "Let's just have a big hard-hitting investigation!"
Yeah--let's do that. Let's also have one on whether this is really a chair I'm sitting in, or if it is--as some could claim--a chair-shaped false object.
Besides, has he no access to a computer? There WAS that sort of inquiry, findings colloquially known as the "911 Report".
I was talking to an old friend turned paranoiac about this and she said "Well our government has lied to us before".
Ergo, it will lie again.
To which I said " and you have done acid before too so does that mean you are still doint acid?"
No response.
Maybe he can pinch hit for Barrett at UW.
I never liked the man, never trusted him, even in my dem days.
I now see why, certifiable I would say, both Ellsberg and the interviewer.
I mean, in some circles, Ellsberg gets passed off as a very smart guy, but really, re Bush and Cheney:
"Their interests seem to have a lot to do with oil; anyone who discounts the role of oil in their ambition is naïve"
With all his intellect this is the best he can do?
I haven't read enough about him over the years to know what his politics are, but a pacifist he certainly is. Another who enjoys the fruit's of our freedom while poisoning the roots that spring it forth.
Ellsberg...Ellsberg. Wasn't he some kind of hero once upon a time?
It must be the end times, all the ghouls are rising from the grave.
I was talking to an old friend turned paranoiac about this
Gotta say, terrye, I'm beginning to wonder about your former life ;)
'Course, I need to check in on my own folks and see how far their case of BDS has advanced. Started back with Bush the Elder so they were ahead of the times.
In answer to Chuck's "Ellsberg?", he HAS been in the forefront of reasoned opposition: He was arrested for trespassing a couple years ago--some protest somewhere.
Take THAT, oppressive capitalist running dogs!
He knows--he KNOWs--Barrett is a lying nutjob.
It's just that, such a corrosive story must be supported, true or not, because in the "larger sense" "what is" depends on what "is" is, and Bush "is" not Ellsberg's candidate for president.
It all makes perfect sense up there in the dialectic Tower of Babel.
Yeah, I think that Valerie Plame was working on the Bush did it angle until she was outed by a neocon cabal intent on using the former WTC site to store all the oil they stole using Haliburton in Iraq.
I think he's arguing as many still argue about FDR that we knew the attack eas coming and took insufficient steps to stop it so as to have sufficient provocation for war. In both cases, it's nutty of course.
But here's the point if you ignore 99.9% of all the available evidence and work backwards you can do this. And I've no doubt that great solons of the sort sitting in the minority seats of the House and Senate would love to continue this nonsense.
CF,
Are you suggesting that a Democratic majority might be a bad thing? Whoa, all we need are two years of moonbat investigations. I'm getting sick of Kennedy already.
Laff all you want, but he's gonna teach this crap @ UW in the Fall. For, um, "pay".
buddy, I think Bennett will be fired, or BOTH Bennett and the provost Farrell will be.
(The best two suggestions I saw on Althouse were (a) allow only engineering students to take his course; and (b) publicly transmit the course.)
chuck:
My dear, you don't want to know. My past was {shall we say} colorful.
Truth is I was sent here by the master to spy on you all. First I must convince you I am one of you, or as my brother put it, "The right wingers got in my head" and from there I build a sense of trust....
you know the rest.
Oh, I've suspected you were in on the 911 plot from the beginning. "Terrye" backwards is "Eyrret", as in "Israel".
"Oh?" you ask, "...what's the connection?"
"Aha!" I say, "...that's just YOUR theory!"
For countless centuries the bluebird of happiness has sung his song from the tree of knowledge, i always say.
Post a Comment