15 responses so far ↓

• 1 Trent Hill // May 30, 2008 at 12:37 am

  Frankly, I think this reeks of Giuliani-style patriotism. I DARE NOT question any event which the government says happened THIS WAY and for THIS REASON.

  I think Baldwin’s answer is scarily close to Ron Paul’s. He obviously thinks an investigation should happen, but likely only to uncover government inefficiencies and such–not somemassive conspiracy.

• 2 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 12:47 am

  Not a single candidate involved in the Libertarians for Justice event — not even the certifiably crazy ones — thinks 9/11 was an “inside job.” They all talked about Osama bin Laden and the hijackers. The only thing they shared in common was a common call for a REAL investigation. Does Weigel (who has linked to IPR, by the way, so I’ll be nice) think the government should always be trusted, that the investigation that has already taken place was sufficiently thorough, or that the government has nothing (i.e. incompetence) to hide?

• 3 Trent Hill // May 30, 2008 at 12:59 am

  GE,

  Cosmotarians dont distrust government…they simply want slightly more money in their pockets and right to use marijuana (but not hard drugs,which could be dangerous).

• 4 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 1:05 am

  I’m not an expert on the 9/11 stuff, but from what I understand, WTC-7 is not even mentioned in the “official” investigation.

  HELLO!?

• 5 Gene Trosper // May 30, 2008 at 1:14 am

  And what exactly is an “investigation” going to uncover? They’ll simply throw a bone to the critics and not find anything substantial.

  Big whoop-de-do.

  Pull our troops out and let’s mind our own business.

• 6 Andy Craig // May 30, 2008 at 1:20 am

  “And what exactly is an “investigation” going to uncover?”

  Exactly. It’s not as though we don’t already know the government massively screwed up. By the time Bush has left office and a “real investigation” can begin, eight years will have passed since the attacks. It’s time to let it go.

  An investigation into post-9/11 civil liberties abuses would be much more productive.

  And no matter how much you plead that you really just want to expose gov’t screw ups, the fact is that any such talk will get you lumped in with Alex Jones type Troofers. You can scream all you want about how that’s wrong, and it may well be, but the reality is that fighting it would be/is an extremely damaging battle with absolutely no prospect of any outcome that would make it worthwhile.

• 7 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 1:29 am

  Andy Craig – I think individuals should stand on principle and not worry about what the statist media will do in return. Should we shy away from every controversial issue? I think not. There is a high probability of criminal negligence, at the very least, on the part of the federal government and the Bush administration in regards to 9/11. I don’t think they should be let off the hook.

• 8 Dylan Waco // May 30, 2008 at 1:39 am

  An investigation might uncover that Mohammed Atta and his gang of merry men may have been triple agents, for western intelligence agencies, who were really Al Qaeda plants all along. Seems to me there is evidence and precedent to support such a theory, and that most of the major errors of ommision by the comission deal with things related to this theoretical scenario.

• 9 Andy Craig // May 30, 2008 at 1:58 am

  GE-

  Even a person standing on principle has to choose their battles. The 9/11 Truther movement insists on fighting a battle with huge costs and zero to negligible gain to be had. Even if you got everything you wanted- which would never happen- what have you accomplished? Some government bureaucrats go to jail? That happened after Watergate, too. Then, and now, such things rarely do much, if anything, to actually advance the cause of liberty. No government policies of any consequence would be changed. We would be no more free.

  And the reality is that by associating yourself and the “libertarian” label with this movement which is a best tangential to the cause of liberty, you are severely hampering your ability and the ability of those of like mind to advances causes that would actually make us freer.

• 10 Deran // May 30, 2008 at 2:23 am

  Well, there was bound to be a “Truther” presidential candidate for president one day! Has he done a vid from the site of the former WTC yet?

  There is that element among the Paulians. The Greens also need to beware abt the taint of trutherism; as I believe their apparent nominee has postulated some ideas on Sept 11, 2001 that are in that same vein of theory.

• 11 Andy Craig // May 30, 2008 at 2:25 am

  “Well, there was bound to be a “Truther” presidential candidate for president one day!”

  Badnarik was one, too.

• 12 gregsarnowski // May 30, 2008 at 2:35 am

  He probably could’ve chosen his words more carefully, but his answer wasn’t that bad. I like Ron Paul’s line, a “cover-up of incompetence” — that’s enough in itself to warrant a new investigation. The video of the response is on the front page of his website if you want to see it.

  Of course Weigel is going to go after Baldwin for this, he’s a mouthpiece for the Barr campaign. What kind of “libertarian” has an objection to government accountability and transparency, anyway?

• 13 Dylan Waco // May 30, 2008 at 2:44 am

  “Truther” label is a bullshit label at this point, because certain folks use the term as a synonym for “crazy” and apply it to anyone who has an anti-establishment view of the 9/11 story, no matter what it is.

  For instance the label allows no distinction between the “Made it happen” v. “let it happen” debate that has been raging in the movement since day one. Furthermore it has been used to tar people like Alexander Cockburn, who has actually been a fierce opponent of the movement at-large, because Cockburn, like libertarian Justin Raimondo has advanced the argument that Israeli intelligence may have had some foreknowledge of the attacks (or at least that SOMETHING was going to happen).

  Then there are guys like me. Guys that look at the evidence and have read the 9/11 commission report and agree that bullshit about controlled demolition or fake planes is not worth considering, but that also think that the un-Muslim (let alone Wahhabi) behavior of Muhammod Atta and friends suggests that there may have been something more than bad luck involved when known terrorists got into the country and starting staying with informants for the FBI without getting arrested, detained or questions.

  I don’ t think Bush and co. orcheastrated the attacks, wanted them to happen, knew they were going to happen and failed to stop them for political reasons, or any of that shit. But I also think the commision was clearly bullshit and that the reason Cleland resigned from his post was because he realized the fucked up underworld of intelligence double and triple agents wasn’t about to be exposed or even investigated.

  There is precedent for this sort of stuff. The Peter Lance book Triple Cross lays it out nicely. And yet to most people I’m a “truther”, which again is a bullshit term that ought to be tossed in the trash.

• 14 Andy Craig // May 30, 2008 at 2:46 am

  What kind of libertarian doesn’t know that “government accountability and transparency” is a contradiction in terms?

• 15 RedPhillips // May 30, 2008 at 8:33 am

  I think Baldwin answered as best he could. The “Truthers” are part of any alternative rightist movement (as well as any alternative leftist movement) whether we like it or not. For Baldwin to come out in support of a conspiracy theory would be suicidal. To not support additional investigation would get him written off by the Alex Jones crowd as a dupe. To support more investigation is essentially harmless, potentially helpful, and keeps the “Truthers” relatively happy.

  BTW, I agree that “Truther” is not a useful term and should be abandoned, but I really don’t know what to replace it with.

Leave a Comment