The DINOcrats write letters of protest to the Mickey Mouse Reptilicans.
I particularly find this line amusing:
...Amidst alarming reports that irresponsible theories about the events of 9/11 have begun to gain currency with the American people, you should not want to lend your personal reputation to a production which seems likely to instigate new and dangerous falsehoods...
The Washington Post and MSNBC are also all upset about the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
That, and all the wackos out here in cyberspace calling for Bu$hCo/ Cheneyburton impeachment and for Darth Rumsfeld (and the whole White House Iraq Group) to be given one way tickets to the Hague war crimes' tribunal.
I can't imagine why anyone would come up with a conspiracy theory when a think tank calls for a "new Pearl Harbor" to change the thinking of the American people, takes an election without the popular vote, allows a new Pearl Harbor nine months later, promptly goes to war with an old scapegoat who had nothing to do with the new Pearl Harbor and no weapons to resist, and gets filthy rich(er) doing it.
(thanks to Mike Tidmus and Firedoglake)
The old and dangerous falsehoods, like the Saddam/ 9-11 link, seemed to squeeze by the DINOcratic possé easily. Without any complaint. Only now, with the other side of the Clintons looking at the presidency with more than a little lust, and the potential takeover of Congress by Democrats propelled by progressive unrest, do they take up the call against the War.
The DINOcrats are also funded by the Carlyle Group. Google "Soros" and read carefully. They didn't fuss when we were bombing Iraqi civilians under Clinton, they kissed up to Al Qaeda in the Balkans, and they appointed Tenet to mislead the CIA. Now they cry when Karl Rove targets the DINOcratic version of Ronald Reagan.
One hopes they are successful in slamming ABC/ Disney. That Mickey Mouse outfit has no business taking over the airwaves. I just hope people don't hand over their power to question the system to just another faction of the Company board.
But many of the most irresponsible theorists have made some pretty careful points.
For example, Jeff Wells digs up the facts that Anderson Cooper did an internship for the CIA when he was younger, but goes on to note:
...Cooper's internships nearly two decades ago don't imply that he's "on the payroll." But the payroll isn't very long. It's the assets, not the agents that predominate in the media, and his summer work is a strong indicator of affinity: something the Agency would not be inclined to forget as it follows the progress of his career, even as Cooper's viewers remain in the dark.
This is something to be remembered by 9/11 truthseekers who are ready to settle instead for heroes, and uncritically embrace longtime intelligence veterans as sudden "converts" and spokespersons. Like 28-year CIA analyst William Christison, whose "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" was widely astroturfed last month. His leading points, that an "airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon" and "controlled demolition" brought down the towers, are the most contentious and speculative and least profitable arguments that can be made for 9/11 complicity. As with "former Bush insider" Morgan Reynolds' triple-dog-dare-ya that there were no planes at the World Trade Center either, more sensible observers need to ask why certain people with certain backgrounds are advancing certain positions, rather than be gratified that persons of a certain stature are saying something, anything, even when it's wrong or uncertain or foolish.