The State of Conspiracies

A guy who calls himself Markadelphia asked me a question on Kevin’s blog:

Phelps, just so I am clear, all of the conspiracy ideas…ALL of them are just plain wrong, have no basis in fact and are just plain looney?

No, the VAST MAJORITY of them are based on a tiny sliver of fact and the rest is just plain looney. Here’s the state of conspiracies as I see them.

The Kennedy Assasination:

Lone shooter, who was Lee Harvey Oswald. This is the granddaddy conspiracy theory, and one that I know lots and lots about. I live in Dallas. I have been to Dealey Plaza many many times. I worked on the first searchable Warren Commission CD-ROM (along with the House Select Committee on Assassinations CD-ROM.) I’ve seen the evidence. I started out as a believer. My personal flavor was that a mafia assassin shot from the records building, and was supposed to shoot Oswald when the Secret Service returned fire on him, but the Secret Service never fired, so he was unable to kill the patsy.

And then I thought about how wide this world’s most popular conspiracy would have to be to stay secret. And it just didn’t make sense. Then I started looking at the evidence from that standpoint (instead of assuming a conspiracy and trying to make it fit that mindset) and it because pretty clear that Oswald was just a nut with communist leanings. The reason the Warren Commission looks like a coverup is because it is. It is a coverup of Oswald’s communist dealings so that we didn’t end up in a shooting war with Russia. That is why they were on the phone with Johnson within minutes of the shooting. They wanted to make it clear, “we had nothing to do with this.”

Other Assassinations:

The late 60s / early 70s were a hotbed of assassinations. When one guy does it, all the other looney kids want to try it. There is no conspiracy needed for people to act in concert. Any student of the free market can tell you that. James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, all nuts who didn’t need any help.

The Communist Invasion:

Real conspiracy. Yes, communists were trying to subvert America, and yes, they picked Hollywood as a soft target. Yes, Hollywood was a hotbed of communist sympathies, and yes, the KGB was behind it. The records have been released, and we can all go look.

The Illuminati:

Yes, there was a group called the Bavarian Illuminati in the 18th century. No, they aren’t around anymore in anything other than a few losers running around calling themselves by that name. They don’t run anything, and they have no power.

Skull and Bones:

Yes, there is a Skull and Bones Society. Yes, the members come from powerful families and often end up powerful themselves. No, I don’t think that there is some concerted effort to take over the world. Yes, there is a concerted effort to protect each other. That is how fraternities work.

The Bilderbergers/Trilateral Commission:

Yes, the groups are real. Yes, people in these groups have agendas. No, they do not have a plan to take over the world, and even if they did, they do not have the means to put it in place.

The Michael Icke lizard people:

Snort

Anunaki/Niberu:

This one is interesting in that I haven’t heard any really good refutations, and that all the people necessary to keep the secret are dead. Dead people keep secrets remarkably well. I keep my eye on this one.

Gnomes of Zurich:

Anti-semitism at its purest, and complete fantasy. Made up by Russian propagandists and stupidly cartoonish.

Freemasonary:

Yes, thee are Freemasons. Yes, they did run things for a period of time. I believe they were formed from fugitive Templars in Scotland, and many of the policies of the Masons come from this fugitive heritage. They did have an ideal, which was heavily influenced by the free thinkers of the time, that culminated in the American Experiment. I believe that Masons on both the Rebel and British sides conspired to have the war go our way, and Masons continued to run the country in the ideal of this experiment for many years. Public opinion turned against Masonry in the mid 19th century, and, under attack from a sensationalist press, the Masons shifted away from political powerhouse and into a traditional fraternity.

Military/Industrial Complex:

It is real, but it isn’t a conspiracy. It is a product of a perverse incentive in the free market. The perverse incentive is that we have the same people who are acquiring equipment for the armed forces working for the people providing the equipment a year later. You don’t need a conspiracy for a General to know that there is a good chance of him getting a hefty salary working for Contractor A when he retires a year after pushing Contractor A’s $6BB contract through.

The Moon Landing:

It really happened. It was cheaper to actually go to the moon than it would have been to fake it and keep everyone paid off.

Zionism:

Yes, Zionists are real. They are called Israelis. No, they do not run the White House, Hollywood, the Record Industry, Television, or anything else other than Israel. They don’t care about running America or anyplace else in the world. They would be happy if people would just stop bombing them and let them grow oranges.

September 11, 2001:

Yes, there was a conspiracy. I believe that 20 or more Islamist hijackers conspired through the Al Queda network with several nation-states (including but not limited to Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria) to take over several American commercial jetliners and fly them into prominent American targets.

UFOs:

I don’t think that UFOs are aliens or time travelers. I think that the vast majority are natural phenomena, and the rest are military projects or the occasional hallucination.

Alien Abduction:

Sleep disorder. Once you get past the modern trappings, these are plain old nightmares. A gray’s face is pretty much what you get if you try to draw a textbook monster (large featurless eyes, pale skin, many 45 degree angles.) It is what we are hardwired to fear in our brains. The paralysis is the natural paralysis that you get when you are asleep. Other people have dreams where they can’t move. It is the same phenomenon. They just don’t have a hypnotist convincing them that aliens are causing it.

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:

Very, very real. I am a member, as is Kevin. Glenn Reynolds works as the liaison for the blogosphere, and we get talking points from him every other day (unless an emergency action message goes out. Those come through ACE with flaming skulls.) We meet for ice cream in small cells once a week, and occasionally have giant, drug laden homosexual orgies. We don’t want to, but we have to so that they have blackmail material on all of us.

If there are any more you feel the need for me to opine on, just let me know in the comments. I am somewhat of a conspiracy theory afficiando, so you are unlikely to surprise me. I did all of this from memory, so if I mispelled a proper name, that is why.

38 Comments

  1. Mexigogue says:

    You forgot the one about AIDS being invented by the white man in order to keep the black man down.

  2. Kevin Baker says:

    I categorically deny membership in the VWRC!

    (Where’s the ice-cream social this week?) And I don’t know about you buddy, but the orgies I attend are CO-ED!

  3. Phelps says:

    Sure, the orgies are co-ed, but we aren’t allowed to touch the women. They have to touch each other.

  4. Kevin Baker says:

    I KNEW there was a good reason I have man-boobs!

    (I didn’t write that. Someone stole my identity! I swear!)

  5. Markadelphia says:

    Phelps, I agree with you on some of these. Clearly we went to the moon. And I don’t believe in the lizard people thing…it’s David Icke by the way.

    But Kennedy? I have spent years pouring over the same research that you have seen and, looking at it from a pure CSI point of view, it just doesn’t add up. Why is third shot the most accurate? Shouldn’t it be the first? Why does his head snap back? I know you are all gun experts…the ones I have talked to–sevral actually–say there is no way the shot could have come from the back. The one magic bullet? Give me a break..

    As to who was responsible, don’t you find it odd that Allen Dulles, the man who Kennedy fired as head of the CIA, was on the Warren Commission? What about Howard Hunt’s latest deathbed confession? Again, too many questions….so many that I can’t say for sure where the answers lie. That is how things can be kept a secret.

    As far as UFOs go, well I guess Colonel Phillip Corso and the HUNDREDS of other military men are all liars and delusional, right?

  6. Phelps says:

    The third shot was no more or less accurate than the others. It just happened to be more lethal. Anyone who has ever shot watermelons knows why his head snapped back. And there is nothing magic about the angles. I’ve seen the test where they lined up mannequins in the positions of Kennedy and Connally and shot lasers through the wounds. Guess what? Two hits, both straight to the sixth floor area. They look magic when you draw them isometrically on a blackboard. They don’t when you actually use three dimensions.

    Hunt was an egotist and media hound, just like Liddy, and so is his son with this “confession.” And you don’t think that the money that Corso made on his books had anything to do with his narrative? Where is the money in the “nothing happened” book?

  7. Markadelphia says:

    How about a multi million dollar deal for Vincent Bugliosi with Tom Hanks and HBO for his book? Or the money Posner has made for his book? I’ve read them both and they just doesn’t answer all of my questions so that’s why I disagree.

    Look, is it possible that Oswald was the only shooter and perhaps an agent of Castro? Sure, anything is possible. I just think that scenario is unlikely given how much that fact would’ve benefitted certain people in our government. Now, do you think it’s at least possible that there was a conspiracy?

    Kennedy made a lot of enemies. The mob stole the election for him in Chicago and then he sent Bobby after them. He screwed over the anti-Castro Cubans by not providing air cover in the Bay of Pigs. He fired Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, and Charles Cabell, whose brother Earle was the Mayor of Dallas on Nov 22, 1963.

    Make enemies like that…put it all together in big stew and it just stinks. It’s not like it’s any big, 4th of July “ooo” “ahh” reveleation…it happens all the time in other countries and througout history.

  8. Phelps says:

    I don’t think Kennedy had any more or less enemies than any other president of the 20 or 21st centuries. Kennedy was not special.

  9. Markadelphia says:

    There are also many unanswered questions about 9-11. The one that is bugging me currently: Why in so many other situations involving aircraft going off course were jets scrambled so quickly and not on 9-11?

    For the record, though, I do think that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks, with bin Laden and Zawahari directing them.

  10. Phelps says:

    “So many?” Name two. Name two cases where US airliners went off course in US airspace before 9/11/01 where fighters were scrambled to intercept.

    Second, even your basic premise is flawed, because fighters were scrambled on 9/11/01. They just didn’t reach intercept before the planes reached their targets (or crashed for United 93.)

  11. Markadelphia says:

    How about 129 examples? In the year 2000, jet fighters were scrambled that many times when planes either were off course or went out of radio contact. And I don’t think you are quite aware of the timeline on 9-11 so let’s take a look at the examples of Payne Stewart and 9-11 side by side.

    Payne Stewart. On Oct. 25, 1999, his Learjet
    strayed off course from its intended path at about 9:30 a.m. By 9:38, an air-traffic controller called for military interception. At 9:54, an F-16 reached his jet to perform a visual inspection – just more than 15 minutes after being radioed to do so. A series of military
    planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear until it crashed in a field in South Dakota.

    On 9-11,Flight 11 took off at 7:59 a.m., followed by Flight 175 at 8:14 and Flight 77 at 8:21. At 8:20, Flight 11, destined for Los Angeles, made a sharp U-turn and headed for New York. Then the plane’s transponder – which identifies the plane to the controller – was shut off. Shortly
    afterward, United Flight 175 made a similar U-turn. These deviations from the flight plans made it clear something was wrong. The FAA states that if an air-traffic controller is “in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.”

    So the ominous U-turn Flight 11 performed should have sent up a red flag to controllers, and military aircraft should have scrambled immediately. But Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for North American Aerospace
    Defense Command (NORAD), said U.S. fighter jets were called to intercept only after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:40. A few days later, the
    official story changed and government and U.S. Air Force officials claimed two F-15s had indeed been called to intercept from Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Mass. The officials, however, said the planes left the base at 8:52. That means after Flight 11 made its U-turn, 32 minutes passed before fighter jets were called in to intercept.

    So military aircraft were called for and met up with Stewart’s jet in a total time of about 30 minutes, yet it took 32 minutes before jets were even called to intercept any of the hijacked flights. Why?

    In addition, within minutes of Flight 11’s U-turn at 8:20, the FAA became aware of the unusual situation. But President Bush, who was reading to a class at Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla., wasn’t notified of the situation until shortly after 9 a.m. And he didn’t tell them he had to leave but instead kept on reading.
    In a national emergency, procedure dictates the president hold an emergency meeting with members of his staff to assess the situation and plan a course of action. But it wasn’t until 9:30 a.m. that Bush finally came on the air to tell America what already was obvious – we were under attack.By this time, both planes had already disintegrated while Flight 93 was heading for
    the Capitol and Flight 77 was making a beeline for its intended target, the Pentagon. Any steps taken after this point in time were in vain. So even if we are to entertain the idea that controllers failed to follow standard operating procedure and get military aircraft in the air, it still doesn’t explain why Bush didn’t immediately act when he was told our nation was
    under attack.

  12. Phelps says:

    How about 129 examples? In the year 2000, jet fighters were scrambled that many times when planes either were off course or went out of radio contact.

    And how many of these were commercial jetliners? Yes, they were intercepting private planes and small charter jets that went off course as part of the drug interdiction plan. No one expects AMR to smuggle cocaine on the Boston-LA flight. Were our priorities out of whack? Sure. But that doesn’t add up to conspiracy.

    (And BTW, when you come back with a cite, make sure that it doesn’t have “truth” in the URL.)

    So even if we are to entertain the idea that controllers failed to follow standard operating procedure and get military aircraft in the air, it still doesn’t explain why Bush didn’t immediately act when he was told our nation was
    under attack.

    1) I haven’t seen any evidence that scrambling fighters by the ATC was “standard operating proceedure” — in fact, everything I’ve seen said that the ATC had no way to contact the USAF, and that the drug feds were in charge of intercepts of civilian aircraft before that.

    2) The president didn’t immediately act because he couldn’t. He travels in a motorcade. What was he supposed to do? Jump up, throw on a cape, and run down the hall singing “na naa na naa na naa Bushman!” Are you saying that when we are under attack is the best time to start moving the president around with no preparation on his security? Half an hour for the Secret Service to figure out what the hell is going on is too long?

    I think that you should stop getting excited by half-wit truthers, and start using some critical thinking.

  13. Markadelphia says:

    It has always been my understanding that there are several scenarios for the President in the event of an emergency. For a man who is supposed to be tough, clear, and decisive, he sure seemed like he didn’t know what he was doing at all. Tell me, if Al Gore had done all of the same things would you be as forgiving?

    I am a critical thinker and that’s the problem here. I am asking questions, searching for answers and you are giving me responses that only explain part of the story. I don’t trust what my government tells me-regardless of who is in office.

    By saying this

    “And BTW, when you come back with a cite, make sure that it doesn’t have “truthâ€? in the URL.”

    shows me that you aren’t a critical thinker at all as you discount every single thing that these folks say. Would it surprise you to know that they feel the same way about you, which I think is also wrong?

    Anyway, this link does not have “truth” in it, per your request

    http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/#ref2

    What it does have is some thoughtful questions without the remote controlled planes nonsense. Check it out and let me know what you think.

  14. Phelps says:

    Yes, I would have been as forgiving of Gore. I was as forgiving of Clinton on TWA 800 (where I do think there was a coverup of a terrorist attack. Missed that one in the list. Damnit.)

    Anyone who thinks that a demolition event occurred at the WTC on Sept 11, 2001, is delusional. And yes, your cite comes from someone who is delusional about the events on 9/11/01, and I therefore do not find them to be credible.

    I don’t understand how you can simultaneously believe that the government is both this self-serving and evil, and not have anyone involved playing any CYA games that would allow them to cash in on the aftermath. You say that you don’t trust your government, but you also find them to be supremely competent? About the only thing I trust the government in is incompetence. I’m not surprised when I see it in the records of 9/11/01.

    I am not ignorant of the facts. I am not stupid. I am not evil. I still disagree with you.

  15. Mexigogue says:

    This sounds like a case for the Hardly Boys.

  16. Phelps says:

    One drop of clue goo and I’m kicking everyone out of the treehouse.

  17. Markadelphia says:

    Yeah, there is something to that whole TWA 800 thing that we don’t know about. Not sure what, exactly. But the official story is crap. Same with Pan Am 103.

    I don’t agree with everything on that site I sent but he does raise some interesting questions. If you read the disclaimer, he only puts forth theories than can be backed up with evidence. At the end of the day, though, they are just theories. I still have many questions about that day and no answers. Do you think I will get them? I don’t.

    I agree our government is incompetent but there are people that use that veil of incompetence to pursue an agenda. They attempt to control chaos, not always with perfect results, to achieve their ends. This is true of both parties and never more exempliefied perfectly than in the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, incompetent liars essentially destroyed any remaining remenents of the “good” governments of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and Jack Kennedy.

    The last line you wrote has endowed me with an enourmous amount of respect for you. Very well put.

  18. R says:

    So I’m reading this book, “Crossing the Rubicon” which puts forth a lot of pretty damning evidence with respect to pre-9/11 relationships between the State Department, Pakistan’s intelligence service, and wired money to Mohamed Atta.

    In addition to Saudi Arabia’s “official” ostracizing of bin Laden and the kingdom’s relationship and communication with bin Laden’s family.

  19. Mexigogue says:

    Yes, and I read on the web a list of about 100 people know knew Clinton who mysteriously died during the 1990s. That just proves you can make a case for anything. I can (and this is a stretch) even make a case that O.J. is innocent.

  20. Markadelphia says:

    I’ve heard about that Rubicon book. Haven’t read it yet but I’ve heard that much of it is accurate.

    Phelps, Mexigogue’s comment is a perfect example of how people can keep conspiracies secret. YOu asked the question. Here’s how the formula works:

    1. A theory is made..backed up with some evidence, testimony, and eyewitness accounts. There is a call for further investigation and more evidence.

    2. This theory is then framed with something silly like Elvis flies a UFO or Clinton Died in the 1990s.

    3. People then laugh off or ignore the theory. Professional debunkers step in and launch a smear campaign against the authors of the theory (Did you hear that he used to be a Communist? Gasp!)

    4. Theory effectively destroyed. Secret kept.

    Way to use the formula, Mexigogue!

  21. Phelps says:

    1) A theory is made… resting on some ridiculous, convoluted premise.

    2) The proponent of this theory then tries to jam anything resembling a fact that bolsters this premise into the theory.

    3) An uninterested observer looks at it and says, “you know, this is all based on a ridiculous and convoluted premise.”

    4) The proponent of the theory then re-explains the theory, assuming that the observer is ignorant of the facts.

    5) The observer replies with reasons that the underlying premise is still ridiculous and convoluted, showing that he is not ignorant.

    6) The proponent of the theory then assumes that the observer is either stupid, making him a dupe of the conspiracy, or evil, and therefore must be in on the conspiracy.

    Way to use the formula!

  22. Markadelphia says:

    If anyone you have ever talked to accuses you of being stupid or evil, then they really aren’t a serious researcher. I doubt that Jim Marrs, Stan Friedman or anyone with serious credentials would do that.

    But I do think that you have a kneejerk reaction to immediately disbelieve any theory at all and THAT is how secrets are kept. I tend to think that anything is possible, although not trusting anything to be completely true, mostly because I am (surprisingly) a cynic.

  23. Mexigogue says:

    First of all, I’m guilty of a typo. I meant to to type “people who knew Clinton died in the 1990s”. On top of that the phrasing is ambiguous. My meaning was that people who were aquaintences of Clinton were now dead, not that people were aware of the fact that Clinton was dead. My apologies for the minunderstanding. Let me see if I can dig up that list of people close to Clinton who died during his terms in office.

  24. Mexigogue says:

    Here is one such list although it’s not quite as many as I remembered. Anyhoo the idea is that all these facts can be brought together to make it appear that Clinton had all these people murdered. Just because it can be argued doesn’t make it necessarily the Truth.

  25. Markadelphia says:

    There is something to the people around the Clintons. What it is exactly, I’m not sure but Hillary was the first female to ever atttend a Bilderberger meeting. She is just as rotten as anyone else….

  26. R says:

    Phelps, Mexi:

    The premises of the Rubicon theory are, amongst others, the following:

    1. Osama bin Laden was, and always has been, a CIA asset. Do any of you deny this?

    2. Osama bin Laden’s family owns the largest (and oldest) company in Saudi Arabia. Do any of you deny this?

    3. The Saudi Bin Laden Group owns or has other financial relationships with, via several European investment firms, several American defense and oil contractors. Do any of you deny this?

    4. There are several journalistic publications (mainly European) that have documented frequent visits between the State Department and the Pakistani Intelligence Service. Can any of you refute this?

    5. The United States and Pakistan have covertly funded the Taliban and al-Qaeda to do our/their bidding. Do any of you deny this?

    So while Mexigogue’s theory is clearly based on ridiculous assumptions, this other theory has very concrete links, very documented links, between the big players detailed in the conspiracy.

    Money was moved. Visits were made. Intelligence assets were used. All of this is truth.

  27. R says:

    Oh yeah, solid list, by the way. The web site blames the Oklahoma City bombing deaths on Clinton.

  28. Phelps says:

    1) Denied. Bin Laden was considered an unreliable blowhard and a waste of money by the CIA. They funded other mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

    2) Agreed.

    3) Agreed.

    4) Agreed.

    5) Denied. The CIA funded some mujahadeen groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Those groups were neither Taliban nor Al Queda.

    The ridiculous and convoluted theme of this conspiracy is that the CIA threw money around to all sorts of groups, and that these groups would not exist without the CIA. The reality is that the CIA funded very few groups, and never funded Bin Laden, because he had his own money and didn’t trust the CIA either.

  29. Jenn says:

    You guys are all freakin’ great.

  30. Mexigogue says:

    Phelps is correct. The Taliban (plural of talib meaning religious student) came about LONG after the US pulled up stake out of Afghanistan. The Taliban was not a creation of the US and has never been funded by the US either directly or indirectly. Any such supposition is absurd. The Taliban were (and are) fighting the Northern Alliance which is chok full of former US cronies. Perhaps it is those R was thinking about.

    Two, Bin Laden has never been funded by the US and never needed to be. Any attempt to do so would be like offering Kim Fields a padded bra. Bin Laden is exactly what he has always claimed to be, a self proclaimed Muslim mujahid who has declared war on the US. No Muslim radical worth his salt would team up with the President of The Great Satan in order to fight the great Satan. I dare you to come to the East Lansing Islamic Center disguised as a Muslim and suggest this line of thought. Everybody will laugh their towels off!

  31. Phelps says:

    C’mon, Mexi, you know all brown people look alike to R.

  32. R says:

    Anytime any defense/oil/energy contractor owned by the SBG makes any money, you can guarantee Osama’s family is funneling that money to him.

    That is, unless you believe that Osama’s family truly DID cut him completely off.

  33. Phelps says:

    I agree with you, R. The only way to get Osama is to attack Saudi Arabia. You’re a genius.

  34. R says:

    It’s about ready to collapse anyway. Let’s do it.

  35. Vivian says:

    Re – The Kennedy Assasination:
    In Operation Solo there is an eyewitness account of the Kremlin on the day of the assasination and their unguarded reaction (shock, they didn’t have anything to do with it). Great Cold War spy book, BTW.

  36. Markadelphia says:

    On the subject of bin Laden and the CIA, here is what I found.

    Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, wrote in The Guardian on Friday, July 8, 2005:

    “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians”

    However…

    Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, rejected Cook’s notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following:

    “that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There’s no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn’t have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn’t have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn’t really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.”

    Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran ISI’s Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:

    “It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers’ money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan’s policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.”

    I think the truth lies somewhere in between. bin Laden had his own money, sure, but I think the CIA helped him acquire arms because it was mutually beneficial to for both of them to fight the Soviets. Just like Saddam Hussein, he was an ally as it served our interests and then an enemy.

  37. Phelps says:

    So… the same British Intelligence that certain people say can’t be relied upon for the purposes of Bush’s State of the Union Address claiming that Saddam was trying to obtain yellowcake is relied upon by the same people when the allegation is that the US funded and controlled Osama? Count me incredulous on that front.

    We also have Pakistan claiming that they controlled everything in the winning war in Afghanistan and that the US had no direct contact with the mujahadeen, even though both the US and the mujahadeen admit that we did. I’m not buying that posturing either.

    The fact of the matter is that the CIA says we didn’t fund him, he says we didn’t fund him, and everyone who was close to both of them (like Bergen) say that we didn’t. That’s pretty conclusive for me.

  38. Markadelphia says:

    I guess in the end, Phelps, when it comes to conspiracies, I am not one of these freaky geeks rubbing their hands together and collecting newspaper clippings about how Elvis and Bigfoot are one and the same.

    When I talk to people about the JFK assassination, for example, and why he was killed it’s really no big deal. Throughout human history kings are killed by plots…it’s not really anything new or like some big revelation. Coup d’etats happen all the time on our planet and as long as men hunger for wealth and power…well…when a leader is killed and someone says it’s a conspiracy, I will shrug and say,

    “Yeah. And…..?….so what? Happens all the time.”