Rumsfeld, Conspiracies, and Me
Fantastiko is back in action! I trust your holidays went well and that you’re looking forward to the new year. By the way, did you hear Christmas is under siege? It’s true! Fox says so.
Let the debates continue...
Since 9/11, conspiracy theories have developed concerning each of the flights that crashed that day. Don’t ask me for the details–I just know they exist (if you’re really interested, ask Guille). Based on the Administration’s story and the report by the 9/11 commission, which I’ve only just started reading, my understanding of 9/11 is less than complete. So is yours.
In spite of unprecedented access to information, the 9/11 commission has presumably created a story that does not completely demonstrate the context and details of 9/11 because so much of the information is based on memory, informants with intense political interests in the details of the official story, and so on. For me, believing that I have anything near a complete story bends on the credibility of the players involved. It’s sufficient to say that although a complete story is both desirable and impossible, we should get as close to it as possible.
Many of us have a deep, severe distrust of this administration–and not just because Michael Moore tells us to. I trust that they think their agenda is best for the country. I usually disagree with that agenda–and that’s okay. They represent the majority in this country and I’m clearly not the majority right now. That’s the game and I accept it. My problem is that I have a deep distrust in their ability, method and motivation to accomplish their goals efficiently, honorably and ethically. This is an argument that I should defend thoroughly. I won’t today, but look for it...
Assuming that our distrust is at least partly justified–an assumption that will surely be challenged by many of you–how are we supposed to react to Rumsfeld’s recent faux pas when he referred to flight 93 having been shot down over Pennsylvania (the official story says that passengers on board overwhelmed the terrorists)? How does that support arguments that we should trust the administration’s story of 9/11? Put another way, what are we supposed to do when we encounter information that challenges either the credibility of the Administration, the story, or both? Should we dismiss it in fear of being labeled conspiracy theorists or worse? Should we honor our desire to find truth by raising these difficult questions?
I’m not convinced by conspiracy theories, but thanks to "mistakes" like Rumsfeld’s and other events that have fueled my distrust in the Administration, I’m equally unconvinced by the official story–even before I’ve finished reading the Commission’s report. My point is that, conspiracy theories or not, we don’t have anything near the whole story and that’s not acceptable to me. Eternal ignorance of the 9/11 details doesn’t serve anyone except those who thrive on unfounded conspiracy theories and those who support policies that require an incomplete story.
posted by The Decider @ 2:58 PM
9 Comments:
You're a lying, cheating, wasteful bastard, Nan, and I can prove it. But not right now...
Give me a break. So unnecessary.
You've clouded the "dialogue" again by tossing in a completely unnecessary assault (which you have conveniently avoided defending) on the administration.
I’m convinced that you’re asking the right questions, but you just can’t overcome the impulse to infuriate the minority voice in this forum with verbal jabs before hearing their perspectives. Now, this is a tactic you are clearly skilled at, but are you looking for a civil discussion or an unruly street fight?
Why can't you be more like The Rocketman? He's such a respectful young lad.
Wow. You sound angry. I guess it was just a matter of time before someone called me a bastard. It’s interesting that you value respectfulness and at the same time are the first person to use harsh language in reference to a fellow blogger. Shame!
First, I’m not sure what makes you think that I’m conveniently dodging the defense of an argument for distrusting the Administration’s methods. I simply chose to delay that argument because it is too complicated to discuss in this post. I admitted that I should defend it thoroughly and I will (and in many ways already have been through all of my other posts that criticize the Administration).
I was clear about my assumption that distrust was at least partly justified, which is all I needed to do in order to make my broader argument in this topic, which is that we don’t have the complete story about 9/11. If you know me at all, you’d know that I tend to welcome debate, so to think that I’m somehow trying to avoid the distrust issue altogether, conveniently or not, is absurd. Believe me when I tell you that we can have that one anytime you want.
Second, how can I simultaneously be asking the right questions and clouding the dialogue? Be clear. Specifically, what verbal assaults are you referring to and how exactly do they cloud the dialogue? I don’t know if you read this blog frequently, but I’m not sure that the minority voices, other than you, have felt assaulted by my use of words. I’ll let them speak for themselves though. Frankly, I thought this was one of my softer posts :) By the way, what in your post helps clarify the cloudiness I’ve created?
Finally, you’ve criticized my post without providing a single example or piece of evidence to support any of your arguments, leading me to ask the questions above. Did you conveniently put the defense off for a later time or were you too assaulted by my post to think clearly? Consider this: maybe you’re frustrated because I am asking the right questions and my method of dialogue, which bothers you, is irrelevant.
In the future, you should reconsider using a negative tone directly towards a fellow blogger if you want us to take you seriously. Talk about unnecessary. It just makes you look silly.
I'm sorry, Nan. There's no anger, friend. I’m sorry that I had to present a fake attack to make the point. Apparently, I wasn’t enough “over the top” to be clear that I was trying to be “over the top.” I have nothing but love for you. You are one of the most thoughtful commentators on this administration and I respect that.
Perhaps my ridiculous attack did make it difficult to take me seriously. It may have even clouded my post and made me look silly...but that was my point.
I think that you've made a habit of offering compelling arguments that are tainted by statements like, "My problem is that I have a deep distrust in their ability, method and motivation to accomplish their goals efficiently, honorably and ethically. This is an argument that I should defend thoroughly. I won’t today, but look for it..."
This is akin to saying “I have this list of communists, but I don’t have time to read it to you…”
Or perhaps, “You're a lying, cheating, wasteful bastard, Nan, and I can prove it. But not right now...”
I really don't think this adds to the discussion (without the necessary argument that I’m sure you’re capable of presenting), but what it absolutely does is alters the dialogue with defensiveness and aggression. In light of these side commentaries, those that don’t agree with you may have a difficult time taking you seriously and could even think you look silly. Or perhaps more often, they just tune you out and click back to Drudge.
I think you have something to say and I think conservatives and moderates should be listening. Unfortunately, many of them immediately will take a defensive posture or go to their happy place as soon as you go on the attack…much like you likely did with my post.
This was my point. Not to attack you, but to suggest that you curb the occassional bitterness (if that's what it is) for the sake of your brilliance.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mr. Anonymous
You're right. My delivery does little to assure I'm keeping the opposition in a civil state of mind. And I did sense the intentions of your statement. Thanks for recognizing that I was equally not satisfied by YOUR delivery. In any case, we're even and we understand each other now.
Obviously, this is not where I intended to take this discussion, but it's an interesting point you've raised. But had I given you a complex argument regarding the statement in question, would I still assure that readers would not click back to Drudge? I understand your frustration since you're on what is basically a liberal blog. As a side note, I'd argue that I do a better job of keeping my "verbal assaults" down compared to the other side (not on this blog, but in general). And, for the most part, I try to back up the assaults with logic and evidence.
I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, I don't think I can please you entirely. As long as my message frustrates the "opposition," there will always be complaints about my delivery. I guess I could do a better job of sounding nonpartisan if it was a different forum that allowed for elaborate, multiple-page, endless discussion; for the sake of our visitors, I try to keep each topic down to a few paragraphs--a task I still fail at miserably. Sounds like a bad excuse, huh? It's true though.
In any case, thanks for trying to keep me honest. Although I disagree that I'm necessarily at fault for being anti-productive--again, the message is, in my mind, the bigger problem--I can try using a little more tact when posting touchy subjects. Given that I intend on entering public service after I graduate, I need to hear the opposition telling me that they don't hear me because of my delivery.
In my own defense, I should also mention that I never attempted to convert anyone. Although I'm clear about welcoming debate, the primary motivation for starting this blog was to voice our frustrations and concerns with the status quo.
With all these things in mind, I'm afraid that keeping the political jabs down can be difficult at times for everyone.
Anyway, please keep posting despite this turn-off (and don't worry about the multiple posts; Blogger acts funny some times and posts multiple times. I think you can delete the extra postings).
Well said. I think you touched on an especially interesting question, which is why little stories like this get so little coverage. Rumsfeld's mistake is so off, it should get attention based on its strangeness if nothing else. I suspect, as we've talked about many times on this blog, that while the media and people love scandal (I don't! It's so stressful!), there is a line that we don't want to cross when it comes to considering the flaws of our leaders. That's not to say that I think our leaders lied or were malicious in their intentions. I have no evidence to suggest that the plane was shot down (other than Rumsfeld's mistake and some other odd facts). But we don't even WANT to consider the possibility, despite our certainty that we don't have the whole story or that there are strange stories out there like this one. Many of us believe our country defines what is good; to consider the possibility of a scandal at this level is to question its innate goodness.
Separate from this particular story, but related to the broad idea about judging our leaders, I truly believe that some people can't separate an Office or institution from the person holding Office. If we say that Rumsfeld lied, that somehow brings down the dignity of the office; it some how brings down the United States Government as an institution. Personally, I think that all it does is it takes down the dignity of the people who were moved to elect them OR who failed to hold them accountable. I think that's what people are really afraid of. We're responsible for holding government accountable. If they fail, we fail. So we don't want to consider their failures (unless during dinner conversations or an election year).
Again, I'm not saying Rumsfeld lied. I'm just talking in general assuming that we don't know the whole story about anything. I do recongize, however, that Rumsfeld MAY have lied. What the hell do you or I know?
For the record, I'm a big fan of anyone who dislikes Rumsfeld. He has quickly become the focus of my discontent. Argh! He bothers me something awful.
Post a Comment
<< Home