It might be more accurate to say that the Soviets aided AQ's rise by invading Afghanistan. The US did not create the mujahedeen, it took advantage of its existence to further its own interests which temporarily coincided with the mujahedeen's.

The problem with the "CIA created AQ" tale, besides the fact that it's not true, is that once again it assumes that actors outside of the west can not take any action on their own without the west leading. Like the "19 Arabs in a cave" nonsense it's a racist view because it denies that those outside the rich, industrialized nations have the capability to act on their own, using their own resources, their own intelligence, and with their own motivations.

Did the US, through the CIA, strengthen a future adversary by helping the mujahedeen against the Soviets ? Yes, of course. Did they create that adversary? No.

Enough of the spineless wonder Harry Reid. Bring back LBJ as majority leader! He'd have 60 votes in a heartbeat without even giving the repukes a reach-around!

My dog had it. Yes, I know, I know. We have a rat terrier that's about 15 or 16 years old, and among other health issues has arthritis. We are very careful about his quality of life now and don't want to keep him around if he's in pain, but on the other hand we don’t want to rush him off this mortal coil too soon either. So about 5-6 weeks ago we took him to our vet for a checkup and reality check. We talked about his difficulty getting up sometimes and how he handles steps (we carry him between floors but there is a single step up to our porch and then another into the house). He slips on wood floors so we added big and little rugs everywhere so he never has to step on slick wood floors again. The vet said he didn't seem to be in pain and seemed happy even with his stiffness and difficulty with small steps. However, he said, one of the other vets in the practice (a younger one) did acupuncture and it seemed to help. I must have done a "what's that smell" look because he said he was doubtful at first too but it seemed to work.

Some background: Our vet has been around for years (he's probably in his 60s) and has about ½ dozen vets in his practice, including his partner, plus some middle-aged vets that have been there for awhile, and some younger ones. We went to them when we got our dog 14 years ago because friends liked them. They're kept our little buddy up and running and happy and wagging his tail through several health crises over the years, so I do trust them. OK, back to the story.

So, long story short, we agreed to try the acupuncture. He had 4 treatments over 4 weeks. Amazingly, our dog sat quietly through the procedure. That in and of itself was surprising as he's very protective of us and has been known to nip at vets in the past. He sat quietly with these little pins sticking out of his back for about 15 minutes.

All I have is some anecdotal evidence but the treatments did seem to help. When we took him into the vet he couldn't turn around in his doggy-travel cage and we had to help him get out backwards, but when we left he turned around inside with ease. He went up the single steps at home without trouble whereas beforehand he struggled. Each treatment seemed to have lasted longer than the previous. It's been a week and a half since the last one and he's doing fine.

I should also note that after the SECOND treatment the vet also took some additional blood tests and discovered his thyroid levels were low so we increased his thyroid medicine and that ALSO made a difference. But we did see definite improvement with the acupuncture alone after the first week.

I am not sure what to think. I don't think it's a placebo, I mean, how could the dog think "OK, these things are in me to help me do stairs?" My wife was sceptical as well but also saw improvement. Of cource, the change in the thyroid medicine muddies the water a lot. However, I trust my vet: he's given our little buddy great care in the past. Maybe for things such as pain management, etc, acupuncture does work. I'd love to see some clinical trials though.

I just spoke to my cousin who lives near Dayton, ohio. She's a very active volunteer in the local Obama campaign. She told me her high school age son, who supports Obama too, took his Obama buttons off of his backpack. My cousin asked him why, assuring him that he had the right to his own opinion and that if he didn't want them anymore, that was fine. It turns out he keeps being called "N****R lover!" and other vile names at his high school, including by guys who used to be his friends.

My cousin told him if he gave in, they win, and he put his button back on his backpack.

I am shaking I am so pissed off. Little racist bastards. Good for my cousin's son, and for my cousin, in sticking to their guns!

Mr. Obama: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

Mr. Paulson: We're closin' for lunch.

Mr. Obama: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this stock market what I purchased not half a year ago from this very economy.

Mr. Paulson: Oh yes, the, uh, the Unfettered Free Stock Market... What's, uh... What's wrong with it?

Mr. Obama: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Mr. Paulson: No, no, 'e's uh,... it's... adjustin'.

Mr. Obama: Look, matey, I know a dead stock market when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

continued....

http://joemax93.blogspot.com/2008/10/dead-...


(I just found this today via a link on TPM)

I'm not sure I agree with your premise BMUS. (hey, that rhymes!) I agree that the left* has long been a shelter for free thinkers and for the rational among us. However, I think there has always been a woo-woo brigade on the left as well as on the right. I suspect we notice it more because discussion boards like the DU can amplify extreme or fringe beliefs. When someone you agree with on other issues says something outrageous, you’re less likely to dismiss it than if someone who disagreed with on everything said the same thing. You can see the same thing on both the left and the right. If Gore had been in office on 9-11 then the Freepers would be MIHOPers and most of the MIHOP crew on the DU would be poo-pooing it (a few hard core tinfoil head will buy into any theory so the DU would not be totally MIHOP free)

I think the question we need to ask is not “how did this come about” but “how do we stop it from spreading.” How can we contain the spread of the irrational not only on the left, but in American life in general?





* FYI: I don’t like using “left” and “right” as political terms for periods before the 19th Century so I’m referring basically for post 1800 politics in a broad way.

Of course the Civil War was about slavery,. Pasted below are sections from the various articles of secession issued by the various states that made up the CSA. Six of the states specifically mentioned northern attempts to interfere with slavery as a reason for dissolving the Union. The other Southern states, including Florida, North Carolina and Arkansas pretty much said “we’re outta here” and mentioned the election of Lincoln.

While Lincoln did say he would keep slavery to preserve the Union, this really doesn’t help the neo-confederate’s arguments. The point is not Lincoln’s actions, but those of the 11 CSA states. And when Lincoln tried to prevent disunion, what issue did he use to mollify the South? That’s right, protecting their slaves! Had the war been about taxes or tariffs or what have you, then he would have used those issues. The facts that Lincoln used slavery to reassure the South shows just what the primary issue was in their mind.

Finally, consider the phantom 13th Amendment suggested as a peace measure. The real 13th Amendment (ratified in 1865) of course ends slavery. The 13th Amendment called The Crittenden Compromise, would have protected slavery where it existed and enshrined the right to enslave others. The “compromise” met with southern approval, but was rejected by the Republicans. You also have to consider the CSA constitution, which specifically protected slavery, and the words of CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, who indicated that the war was over white supremacy.

Sorry, but there’s really no doubt here. The South succeeded to protect the “right” to enslave others.

Mississippi

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/miss...

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

South Carolina

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scar...

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burdening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Georgia

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geos...

Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

Texas

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texs...

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

the following are from.. http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/ord...

Alabama

Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:

And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,

Virginia

The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:

Section 9.4 of the CSA Constitution…

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

From the “Cornerstone Speech” delivered by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.h...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.{emphasis added} Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

and last but not least, a good Civil War quiz… http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/e/mebuckner/civw...

Matthew 25:31-46 (New International Version)

The Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."



Sure don't sound like "trickle-down" economics to me. Sounds like you're supposed to actually help those who have less than you and not just give the rich huge tax cuts. Sure don't see anything in there about denying gays or women or anybody else equal rights either.

Ok, so what facts should go in a good debunking video? Here's some suggestions..

WTC
Steel weakens at a temperature well within the range met by the WTC fires (ie it did not HAVE to melt stell, just weaken it)
The "pod" occurs where the landing gear is.
"explosions' were jumping bodies impacting
did not fall as fast os the PCTs claim
amount of wire and explosives needed to blow up building and the fact that could not be hidden from workers.
eyewitnesses saw airlines. eyewitnesses who said saw no windows were way too far away to tell.
jet engine landing on street nearby
no "pristine" passport found of Atta, but a badly charred one from another of the 10 hijackers.


WTC 7
not undamaged, hit by falling debris, numerous serious fires inside.
"pull it" in fire fighting terminology


Flt 93
use of cell phones possible, as was use of the built-in chair back phones

Pentagon
eyewitness accounts of airliner
wreckage present as were human remains of passengers
light poles downed
bogus use of "like a missile quote"

overall: where are the passangers if not killed on 9-11??

what else do the PCTs lie about??

I think some recent studies on Incompetence and self-awareness shed some light on the MIHOPERS. Their judgment is so severely impaired that they are completely unaware of just how incompetent they really are at making rational judgements using evidence. The complete idiocy of most of their positions (pods, holograms, tiny nukes, etc) simply escapes them because they are not really capable of judging facts. How else to explain the PCT "experiment" where one of them took a wire rabbit cage, broke a few wires on the side, put a big brick on top, then burned a small fire in the cage in order to "prove" that the WTC towers only fell because explosive charges were used? The "experiment" was so utterly childish that I was stunned that someone could suggest it proved anything.

see, for example, the document at... http://tinyurl.com/kv8xt

Ok, so I get frustrated by the tinfoil crowd. I should note that by tinfoiler I don’t mean everybody who asks questions, I mean those to whom no evidence against their theory is ever accepted, but for whom any piece of “evidence”, no matter how flimsy or faked, that confirms their ideas becomes gospel. Recent examples include the “is Gannon-Guckert that missing kid from a couple decades ago?” threads. When it turned out that there was over a decade difference in their ages , reasonable people said “ok, guess not.” Tinfoilers started wondering if the CIA had artificially aged him. When Wellstone died we all wondered what happened. When his family came out and said they accepted the results of the investigation and that it was an accident that killed him, reasonable people said “ok, damn, he was a good man.” Tinfoilers started wondering if Wellstone's widow had been “paid off” or threatened. And then there is the “no plane hit the Pentagon” crap. It doesn’t matter how many eyewitnesses saw the plane hit, including at least one DUer, it’s gospel to many tin foilers that it was a missile or a bomb.

On the other side, the “Did Bush steal the election” questions led to reports of real abuses which was useful and showed what the DU can accomplish.

This kind of irrationality is personally and professionally frustrating to me. As a professional historian I’m trained to weigh evidence. Seeing people toss the rules of logic and evidence out the window is as aggravating to me as I sure it is for a biologist to read creationist crap.

I have found that whenever I try to get a liberal or moderate friend or coworker to join us here at the DU, I inevitably get a “that site is too far out for me” response, and when I ask why, it’s always the tinfoil threads that they cite. It’s not the anti-Iraq war threads, or threads about the latest outrage by the RW in Washington; it’s the “there is no Osama Bin Laden” crowd that is responsible. I could care less if Little Green Snotballs or the Freakers don't like us. I'd worry if they did. It's gaining a reputation on the left as being irrational that bothers me, because that reduces this board’s effectiveness.

I think this is a shame, because the DU is unique. I read a lot of blogs regularly (I’m especially attached to Pandagon, Sadly No, Orcinus and World O’Crap). Their threaded discussions are nice, but there’s no place like the DU where we can come and have nothing but discussion about what we want to talk about. If I want to discuss the Nuclear Option Deal, I don’t have to wait for some blog to start it. Moreover, there are no trolls to deal with (at least not regular trolls on every thread.) We can talk amongst ourselves.

Finally, I am concerned about how the far RW pushes its ideas into the mainstream. From the right they use people like Coulter and Savage, who parrot stuff from the far racist right that then gets picked up in the mainstream. Another transmission belt, I believe, is the LW tinfoilers. If you check the sites that the tinfoilers quote most frequently you’ll find a very large majority are far RW. One of the most popular is the American Free Press, which stops just shy of being a Klan newspaper. Its reports on 9-11 are taken as gospel by many of the 9-11 CTers here.

You could see this "Transmission belt" directly when General Clark entered the Democratic race in 2004. There were a lot of folks who spouted tinfoil stuff about Clark and Waco taken directly from RW hate sites. The same thing happened on a smaller scale when Kerry started winning primaries and the “Skull & Bones” crowd started attacking him. We can disagree amongst ourselves, but I think that using wackjob RW ideas to attack others on the left is beyond the pale.

Moreover, it's a distraction. All the effort spent on worrying about Chemtrails or some other such boogeyman is effort not being spent on fighting real threats such as Bush's "Save the Forests from All the Icky Trees" plan, or whatever latest outrage is coming out of Washington.

At any rate, what you call stuck up, I call discerning. If you think I’m a snob because I think a crapburger is a crapburger and I don’t like it being on the DU’s menu, that’s your problem. I also get called names by the Scientologist wackjobs on Dupont Circle when I call them wackjobs,and I’m still not going to fork over my life savings to read L. Ron Hubbard.