portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation | political theory

9/11 'conspiracists': "left" or "right" - (Robert Parry, again)

so last week we had a thread on whether the propensity to disbelieve the official 9/11 story was inherently a "left" or "right" phenomenon:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/10/403165.shtml
Thank you to all who responded.

A new article has been posted RE: the satirical Stewart/Colbert 'rally' held in DC yesterday, by the respected investigative journalist Robert Parry (researched Iran-Contra). Mr. Parry also had posted a quite similar article on the 'confused' state of American public political awareness a couple weeks ago.

In both articles, Mr. Parry took a direct sideswipe (a little less harsh, but not much in yesterday's piece) at the 9/11 truth movement, characterizing them as "leftist".

with all due and great respect to Robert Parry: does he know what he is talking about?
here is the link to Robert Parry's latest piece entitled 'Does Sanity Matter?'
 http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/30-7
 http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/102910.html

(and for comparison here is Parry's September 15th piece, 'America's Decoupling From Reality')
 http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/091510.html
(fwiw some have noted that the October 30 piece appears to be mostly a "refried" version of this one from last month...)



Anyway, this comment of interest was posted by a CommonDreams web site user:

===================================================
===================================================
Randy G October 30th, 2010 4:02 pm

Parry is often worth reading but I don't find this essay particularly incisive. There is a remarkable amount of delusion and paranoia in our political process. Primarily, it seems to be a circus act to distract the hoi polloi from the activities of our elite kleptocracy.

The irrationalism is likely to become more acute because stupidity is not self-correcting-- at least not in the historical short term. Magical thinking -- release the power of the "free market", climate change is a scientific hoax, etc. -- is often remarkably immune to evidence.

I notice that Parry takes another shot at the "leftist" 9/11 Truth movement for being delusional. (Actually, a fair number of people from the political "right" -- for example, the Reagan Administration economist Paul Craig Roberts and Alex Jones-- have articulated doubts about the official 9/11 conspiracy.)

Again, I find that odd of Parry because he has co-authored a long historical essay with a scholar, Peter Dale Scott, who appears to be a skeptic of the official conspiracy theory himself.

 link to www.infowars.com

 link to dandelionsalad.wordpress.com

Here is the valuable historical essay:

 http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/100710a.html

If Parry thinks the 9/11 Truth Movement is comparable to the Tea Party or the 'Birthers' in it's delusional views, why is he writing an essay with Scott?

Unless he is also writing essays with Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, Parry's continual swipes at the Truth movement as deranged seem perplexing.

I don't have a problem with him saying the 9/11 Truth Movement is mistaken (Ted Rall appears to hold that position, for instance, and he is quite a thought provoking figure), but it seems quite unjustified for Parry to keep labeling people who notice discrepancies in the official conspiracy theory as deranged.
===================================================
===================================================



Note the confusion on the part of Mr. Parry, in the apparent choice of whom he collaborates with (RE: 9/11 skeptics)....


But again the question arises: where, inherently (should anyone in alternative or mainstream media choose to 'pigeonhole' them) does the 9/11 truth movement fit in?

Is it in fact an 'astroturf' sort of thing? (yes we know it's not but.... Mr. Parry for example is including 9/11 truth in his articles discussing Tea Partiers with the intention of equating them)

who would be 'funding' or bankrolling 9/11 truth if such was the case?

If Mr. Parry or anyone else seeks to "debunk" or otherwise discredit or invalidate the 9/11 truth movement, I'd advise them to get their facts straight. Or at the very bare minimum, be willing to encounter and acknowledge some of the unanswered questions and facts of the occurrences of/surrounding that day, for themselves first.