A Few Words about the “Loony Left”

[Time for change]

“Bush could be caught sodomizing a goat on the front lawn of the White House and they’d say this only showed his love for animals”

The American corporatocracy despises the so-called “Loony Left” – and with good reason: The “Loony Left” routinely questions the “official” garbage that the corporatocracy feeds to the American people through the news media that it owns, thereby posing a serious threat to their legitimacy. Whether it be: ‘Patriots always support their country’s wars’; ‘CEOs deserve to receive 431 times as much money as their workers’; ‘George Bush legitimately won the U.S. presidency through a fair election’; or ‘The purpose of the Bush/Cheney War on Terror is to protect the American people, the “Loony Left” can always be counted on to give these matters independent thought.

The quote at the start of this post was made by Vincent Bugliosi, from his excellent book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” In that book, Bugliosi argues vehemently that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder for purposely and with malice aforethought, lying our country into a needless war against a nation that posed no danger to us whatsoever.

Clearly, Bugliosi’s opinion of George W. Bush is far to one end of the spectrum. Yet, surprisingly, he apparently considers those whose opinion is just a teeny bit further to the end of that spectrum to be “loony”. Referring to George W. Bush’s statement that “Had I known that there was going to be an attack on America, I would have moved mountains to stop the attack”, Bugliosi writes:

But other than some nuts on the far left who were loony enough to actually believe that Bush was complicit in 9/11, shouldn’t this go without saying?

Well, yes, of course it should. But it seems rather ironic that someone who asserts that Bush murdered over four thousand U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would call other people “loony” for believing that Bush is capable of murdering three thousand innocent Americans. What’s going on here?

Perhaps Bugliosi believes these people to be loony because he feels that the available facts clearly argue against Bush’s complicity in the 9/11 attacks? But Bugliosi doesn’t make that claim (nor clarify his comment about the “Loony Left” in any other way), and his own recounting of Bush’s relationship to the 9/11 attacks appears to me to suggest that Bush was in fact complicit in the attacks – at least to the extent of knowing that they were about to occur and purposely allowing them to happen.

That is so odd. And what makes it odder yet is that the first chapter of Bugliosi’s book is devoted to explaining how most people fail to see what’s right in front of them and staring them in the face.


Bugliosi’s view of Bush’s role in the 9/11 attack

Aside from refraining from outright making the claim that Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, Bugliosi could not have been more scathing in his criticism of how Bush handled the situation. He rants for several pages about how Bush did absolutely nothing to prevent the attacks, despite being repeatedly warned about them. He sums up Bush’s efforts by saying:

It wouldn’t have been possible for Bush to have been more remiss, negligent, lazy, and irresponsible. Not possible…

So these points I have mentioned reflect the policy of Bush and his administration to almost look the other way when it came to fighting terrorism.

Almost? Ok, I basically agree with that statement by Bugliosi, with the minor exception that I think the “almost” could be deleted. I think his statement could be revised to read
“So these points I have mentioned reflect the policy of Bush and his administration to look the other way when it came to fighting terrorism”. And then I would add “Therefore, a sane person could reasonably question whether or not Bush and his administration did in fact purposely look the other way when it came to fighting terrorism.” That statement would only minimally deviate from Bugliosi’s statement. Yet he calls us “loony”.

During the course of Bugliosi’s ranting about Bush’s miserably poor performance in failing to address or respond appropriately to the 9/11 attacks, he frequently uses the word “unbelievable”. Then, at one point he pauses to lament with respect to the use of that word:

Why can’t there be more powerful words in our lexicon to describe special, yes, unique situations like this other than this tired terribly overused adverb?

Well, to answer your question, Mr. Bugliosi, there is a more powerful phrase than “unbelievable”. It’s called truly unbelievable. It means so unbelievable that a rationale person would be likely to not believe it. As a matter of fact, that’s the phrase that characterizes the attitude of the “Loony Left” towards the official version of how the 9/11 attacks happened. It’s just a teeny bit different that your attitude towards that version. Like you, we think it’s unbelievable. But unlike you, we don’t believe it.


On the failure of our corporate news media and the American people to put the blame where it belongs

Another thing that Bugliosi rants a good deal about is the failure of the American news media and the America people to blame Bush for his utter failure to even attempt to prevent the 9/11 attacks or to do anything constructive in response to them. He says:

In view of Bush’s mind-boggling, extremely bizarre, and utterly incredible malfeasance in the way he responded to learning that the nation was under attack (i.e. by reading “My Pet Goat” to school children), the whole nation should have been terrified down to the marrow of its bones that someone like George Bush was our president. Yet unbelievably, far from being lambasted as he should have been for his severely aberrational behavior, Bush was treated with kid gloves by the nation’s press at the time, and the incident was mostly ignored…

There never was a moment when the American public blamed Bush for his administration’s failure to prevent 9/11.

Very good point! and true... EXCEPT… What about the Loony Left? They blamed him. Unlike the sane Americans that Bugliosi rightly rants about, the Loony Left didn’t fall for all the media hype proclaiming Bush to be a hero just because he showed up – eventually – and spouted some tough words.


The “Loony Left”

In writing this post I do not mean to denigrate Bugliosi or his excellent book. Far from it, I feel that his book provides an extremely valuable service to the American people by trying to get them to open up their eyes and see what’s transpiring in their country. Our corporate news media is trying to lead the American people to accept a fusion of the corporatocracy with government such as has never been seen in the history of our country. To do that, they try to convince us that up is down, black is white, and George Bush is a heroic President rather than the murderous thug that he is.

Bugliosi attempts to rectify that situation by pointing out the obvious about how George Bush lied us into a disastrous war against a nation that posed no threat to us, and how he has utterly failed to respond adequately to the terrorist threat that confronts us. He makes an excellent case for prosecuting George W. Bush for murder – something that no other prominent American figure has done, to the best of my knowledge.

Bugliosi has demonstrated extraordinary courage, independent thinking and impeccable logic in his attempt to disrupt the status quo way of thinking in our country. In doing that he has unquestionably become one of the foremost members in the United States of… the “Loony Left”. That is what makes his somewhat dismissive remark about the “Loony Left” sooooooo out of place with the rest of his book.

His comment about the “Loony Left” takes up just a couple of lines in a 249 page book. But those comments are very telling of where our country finds itself today. The concept of the “Loony Left” is emblematic of one of the most dangerous trends in our country today. It is a term (along with “conspiracy theorist” and various other terms) used by our corporatocracy to marginalize and demean anyone who exhibits independent thinking and challenges the status quo or the corporatocracy’s view of reality. That is the kind of person who represents the greatest threat to the corporatocracy – the threat of replacing them with something much more akin to democracy. As the owners of the American news media, the corporatocracy has been largely, but not completely, successful in their efforts to marginalize the “Loony Left” and all independent thinkers.

Bugliosi’s quote at the beginning of this chapter is right on target. The U.S. news media does indeed work strenuously to protect George Bush’s reputation, since he is one of their greatest protectors. If they could get away with it, they would indeed defend George Bush for sodomizing a goat on the White House lawn, just as they have gotten away with making a hero out of him for his abysmal response to the 9/11 attacks.

So, why does Bugliosi take a swipe at the “Loony Left” in his book? That’s simple. Since he himself, with the writing of his book, has now become one of the most prominent and dangerous members of the “Loony Left”, he has to take care to maintain his credibility. By referring dismissively to the “Loony Left” he attempts to put distance between himself and them.

That’s fine with me. His book needs to be read widely, and therefore he needs to do what he can to maintain credibility. If that means insulting me and others like me, then that’s fine. I don’t feel insulted because I understand why he has to do it.

[unblock]

1. clarification, from one of the quotes: bush wasn't *reading* "my pet goat" to school children

he was having "my pet goat" *read TO him*, as a school child.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. That should have been obvious, since he probably could not read...

[Ghost Dog]

9. Whaddya mean? Mr Bush is so clever he no doubt routinely reads important White House

briefing documents upside down.

:crazy:

[unblock]

2. i don't have the context for the "loony left" quote, but might he consider himself part of it?

i sometimes joke about the lunatic left myself, but some of my views would put my squarely in that camp. without seeing the context, it might be possible that he actually does believe shurb to be complicit in 9/11 but is simply joking and/or passing along the standard description of that viewpoint as belonging to the loony left.

[Time for change]

6. "It might be possible that he actually does believe shrub to be complicit in 9/11"

Yes, very good point.

However, it is quite clear to me from reading his book that he is not joking. He is an exceptionally good writer, but he is in no joking mood.

On the other hand, it is somewhat difficult for me to believe (almost unbelievable) that he really doesn't believe Bush is complicit in 9/11. As I kind of implied in my OP, given what he says, it is almost staring him right in the face. I do believe that he felt he needed to make a comment like that in order to boost his credibility a bit. He had to put some daylight between himself and some other people so that he didn't come off as... well, what our corporate media would call the "Loony Left".

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

4. Proud member of the Loony Left here

And yes, it was LIHOP.

[PATRICK]

5. Labels and being what you actually do

is a time consuming barrier to get through and serves the usual suspects.

Simply speaking, the left has been left with discarded truth, necessary, valued and critical truth somewhat covered up by RW power but basically shoveled into 'enemy" territory.

As for 9/11 in particular, the marvelous cover up can be discarded by the evidence of Bush administration then and by open and consistent behavior since. The Machiavellian stuff is more tied up in the venal details of money making. All that was necessary to simplify and focus the actual behavior of the administration was to take a stance(not to be confused with a stand, that's for the suckers) and hold to it.

Simply this. Exploit every thing that happens, especially disasters because that is problem solving GOP style. Every thing that other administrations would have to give time effort and imperfect results, mixed benefits for in service to the nation, etc. they simply would not ever do. Not one thing except exploit everything through the benefits of raw power and media control for political gain and every other type of personal gain. Reinforce power and profit while the crime of purposeful negligence and exploitation continues so that while the suckers are reeling and trying to save the victims(and work with the glorious President, their avowed enemy) the "strong" never waver, never suffer off their own regal course.

So interpreting 9/11(even without all the inner revelations) one can easily and generally surmise they knew terrorist hits were coming, inevitable, whatever. They would be the springboard both to a regal presidency and the agenda of Iraq and gutting the Constitution. Since they would not like to believe they could or should always try to prevent them, why not? From there it became part of the day to day irritation of going beyond this mindset to BURYING alarms, reports, evidence and repressing security measures. LIHOP thus becomes de facto MIHOP and morally equivalent without all the mental rigor of actually doing the terrorist work in spectacularly deceptive and clever ways. Privatized to old CIA retreads into religious fundamentalism tools of convenience(the favored recent 5th column of the Bush regime). This preserves the lazy dumb Bush while solving the mystery of how things that happen are still completely intelligent and accountable. Completely transparent then in his testy comments to Clarke without any attempt to fool or obfuscate. Dead eye Dick in his halcyon bad heart years is also comparatively sitting back and reaping the conspiracies of the good old days come to easy fruition, reflexively hammering away with his simple tools without worrying about details or truth. Truth, real truth, after all is loony.

This engine of destruction is still crashing into America, still laden with globally destructive fuel, still too stunning for most Americans, including Bugliosi to do more than gape and wonder at. A simple truth. A truly simple president. A clear set of open results and repeated behaviors that simply work to the twisted fascist will of the usual suspects. You don't need Naomi Klein to formulate the theory. This is our personal school of hard knocks.

[Time for change]

10. Yes, I think that there is a fine line between LIHOP and MIHOP and many different variations

My opinion is that there really was a terrorist attack, that the Bush administration made sure that there would be no military response to it (i.e. a stand down order or something to that effect), and that the twin towers were brought down by explosive devices arranged by the Bush administration. I'd call that more MIHOP than LIHOP, though it has elements of both.

What Bush's personal role was, I have little opinion on.

Maybe we don't need Naomi Klein to formulate the theory, but her book certainly did open my eyes and enlighten me quite a bit.

[wogget]

7. David Sirota has a chapter in Uprising

on how two different parts of the Left who he calls the "Protest Industry" and "the Players" basically work at cross purposes to one another and undermine each other. It's facinating. You have to read Uprising!

[Time for change]

18. That sounds interesting

The one book I've read on Sirota was very good, but I can't remember the name now.

Thanks for the book reference.

[DailyGrind51]

8. The "Loony Left" are those who actually pay attention, when TPTB tell us to

"Move along, please, nothing to see here!"

[Senator]

11. There's Nothing "Left" About Impeaching For War Crimes

Or prosecuting for murder.

And we can still achieve BOTH if we all keep talking impeachment.

Don't buy any lame excuses. Impeachment can be done in a week. And if someone's not demanding it right now (Pelosi, Obama, You?, etc) then they're defending the regime and are complicit with the crimes -- all of them.

---

[Time for change]

19. .

:thumbsup:

[glitch]

12. Bugliosi is brilliant but he doesn't look into everything. .

His focus is very narrow, and anything outside his focus he ignores.

When I saw him on cspan he would respond to questions outside his focus that he had no opinion, he hadn't done the research on it. That is highly principled, unfortunately he doesn't always stick to that.

So I agree, if he hasn't done the research on 9/11 it is surprising that he would offer a judgment on it, or on others who have done more research.

But I also believe he missed on his JFK book where he did do research, I think his laser focus failed him there, too.

[Time for change]

13. I agree with all of that

His statement about the Loony left that I refer to in this OP involved only one sentence, and he offered nothing to supplement it. It seemed to be such a casual statement that he attached almost no importance to it. Yet, everything else he said about 9/11 registered his utter astonishment that the Bush administration had been so incompetent, negligent, or substitute any superlative negative word you can think of, except complicit.

I guess if you write a book like he did, you have say something to create distance between you and those who are dismissed as loony. I'm fine with it though. Mainly, it just indicates what a thorough job the American news media has done to marginalize groups who don't accept their point of view.

[glitch]

14. It is so systemic at this point.

I have the most respect for people who continue, in the face of all that opposes them, to evaluate input on their own and not fear valid input that contradicts "common wisdom".
I know why Bugliosi tossed out the line, he is respectable and he'll gain more attention as long as he keeps that respectability.

But I must admit, while I do respect him and his hard work and brilliance, I have more admiration for the folks who don't worry so much about respectability and don't feel the need to toss out those lines. And I always feel a little bit sad when someone I admire passes into the respectable class, because I know their voice, probably even their opinions, will now be self-managed.

I call it the curse of respectability.

[Greyhound]

15. Oh, and one more thing, we're always right. n/t

:kick: & R

[Beam Me Up]

16. The question of "credibility" and "unspeakable truth"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/27/books.featuresreview">'Apparently, "conspiracy stuff" is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.' -- Gore Vidal

http://www.antonysutton.com/suttoninterview.html">Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left, this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them. -- Anthony Sutton

The question of "credibility" is an important one. Credibility is the power to effect opinion.

Who determines what is or is not "credible"?

For government employees and most news media, the primary aim is to "stay on message." The "message" is always predefined. In matters having to do with 9/11, a matter of national security, the message is clear (although it was not so clear in the first minutes and hours of that day).

Once the "message" solidified (terrorist attacks, Osama, al Qiada, box cutters, hijackings, impacts, fire causing collapses, etc.), anything that falls outside that message is, first, ignored (implied incredible, unworthy of attention or discussion much less admittance into the circle of "credible" evidence) and only afterward dismissed as either irrelevant or explicitly stated as not credible, if the first tactic fails. This explains why the FBI/NTSB (apparently) made no effort to positively identify plane wreckage from that day, "http://www.911blogger.com/node/14406">The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated." The very denial of positive identification is worded in such a way as to reinforce the primary message ("hijacked" "attacks"). This fundamental message is reinforced every time a spokesman comments on or a story is written about 9/11 -- the fundamental message itself is 'beyond' question.

Who ever controls your perception of reality controls you. This control mechanism is only effective to the extent that credibility is sustained.

I would say that the credibility of the US government and the media, though still quite strong, has never been at a lower point in US history. This, of course, is seldom reported as, obviously, its very reporting would tend to increase the incredulity. Nevertheless, I believe the incredulity is growing, and for good reason -- credible information outside the circle of the admissible has leached into the public awareness. As the OP suggests, it is no longer a stretch of the imagination to conclude that elements within our own national security infrastructure were not only permissive of but very likely complicit with this extraordinarily significant policy setting event.

There may be something equivalent to a "balance point" within social credibility. Most everyone "assumes" such and so to be true (whether it is true or not) and any one who questions this fundamental assumption is marginalized. However, if the credibility factor shifts sufficiently there can come a point where sources of information that were once looked upon as "credible" cease to be so and, consequently, their power to persuade diminishes -- and can, in some instances, fall completely into the "not credible" realm.

When that occurs, a real revolution -- that is to say, a revolution of perception -- is possible.

[Time for change]

20. There is some evidence that they are already well on their way to losing credibility

In particular, Bush's continuously low approval ratings, in the 20s, despite everything the corporate media does to protect him and boost him up.

They've pushed it too far, and people are catching on. I just wish they'd catch on a lot quicker.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. In my lifetime, the "Looney Left" has been absolutely correct about the following things:

1. The Vietnam War

2. The need to conserve energy and wean the nation off petroleum products

3. That the "Reagan revolution" would lead not only to short-term pain but also to a long-term weakening of our economy

4. The Iran-Contra scandal

5. The invasions of Panama and Grenada as grandstanding operations rather than necessary military interventions

6. The truth about Afghanistan: that the Soviets were intervening in a country that already had a Communist government and that the "freedom fighters," whom the CIA was funding before the Soviets moved in, were Islamic fundamentalists who didn't know Karl Marx from Groucho Marx and whose main beef was that the government wanted to institute equal rights for women

7. That Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and even on the off chance he did, he didn't have the missiles needed to reach the U.S.

8. That the Republicans stole the 2000 election and most likely 2004, through rigged voting machines and suppression of votes by historically Democratic groups

9. That America's infrastructure is crumbling and needs replacement

10. That concentration of media ownership leads to trivialization and a right-leaning message

11. That the Bushies, whatever your opinion about 9/11 (LIHOP, MIHOP, or just plain negligent), gleefully took advantage of it to get everything they wanted



That's eleven things right off the top of my head. I'd say that the "Looney Left" has a pretty good track record of knowing what's really going on and peeking behind the Bullshit Curtain that the MSM love to place between us and the truth.

[Time for change]

21. Great list

[Beam Me Up]

22. weekend kick