Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So Gore Vidal is a 911 conspiracy theorist too.....that speaks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 07:23 PM
Original message
So Gore Vidal is a 911 conspiracy theorist too.....that speaks
volumes to me! The man is incredible, and if he too believes there's a whole lot more than meets the eye, I guess that takes "conspiracy theory" out of the dungeon. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-10-09 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Here comes
"good author, but he's old and a bit daft"... yada, yada, yada...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedSock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. "Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth" -- Gore Vidal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. Vidal's 2002 essay in The Observer: The Enemy Within

The Enemy Within

by Gore Vidal
London, 27 October 2002
The Observer

Introduction

On 24 August 1814, things looked very dark for freedom's land. That was the day the British captured Washington DC and set fire to the Capitol and the White House. President Madison took refuge in the nearby Virginia woods where he waited patiently for the notoriously short attention span of the Brits to kick in, which it did. They moved on and what might have been a Day of Utter Darkness turned out to be something of a bonanza for the DC building trades and up-market realtors.

One year after 9/11, we still don't know by whom we were struck that infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to many civil-libertarians that 9/11 applied not only to much of our fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had taken a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court did a little dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected president with the oil and gas Cheney/Bush junta.

Meanwhile, our more and more unaccountable government is pursuing all sorts of games around the world that we the spear carriers (formerly the people) will never learn of. Even so, we have been getting some answers to the question: why weren't we warned in advance of 9/11? Apparently, we were, repeatedly; for the better part of a year, we were told there would be unfriendly visitors to our skies some time in September 2001, but the government neither informed nor protected us despite Mayday warnings from Presidents Putin and Mubarak, from Mossad and even from elements of our own FBI. A joint panel of congressional intelligence committees reported (19 September 2002, New York Times) that as early as 1996, Pakistani terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to federal agents that he was `learning to fly in order to crash a plane into CIA HQ'.

...



Read the full essay.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. His concise statement from that, to the point.
"The behavior of President George W. Bush on 11 September certainly gives rise to all sorts of not unnatural suspicions. I can think of no other modern chief of state who would continue to pose for 'warm' pictures of himself listening to a young girl telling stories about her pet goat while hijacked planes were into three buildings.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
4. 7 years...
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 09:25 AM by KDLarsen
I was about to do a lengthy reply when I noticed the date.

Has anyone asked Gore Vidal what he thinks these days? You know, after we've had the investigations he was complaining about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. ... and then, you know, after the co-chairs of the main investigation disavowed it.
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 04:07 PM by eomer
The case for a new investigation of 9/11 is now far stronger than it was in 2004, because even those responsible for the 9/11 Commission inquiry have since complained that it was flawed. The two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, noted in their book, Without Precedent, that they were given insufficient time and “a dramatically insufficient budget of $3 million.” Later they wrote in the New York Times (January 2, 2008) that the CIA “failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. obstructed our investigation.”

http://www.infowars.com/join-the-appeal-for-truth-about-911/


Edit to add: regarding your question whether anyone has asked Vidal these days, I assume you saw it but in case you didn't, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=271713&mesg_id=271775">Post #5 below, in particular this paragraph:

--I try to pull him back. Yes, it's clearly the case that 9/11 was in part a blow-back response to US crimes in the Middle East, but he goes much further, and says the Bush administration was "probably" in on it. Where is the evidence for this huge claim? "It would certainly fit them to a T, so you can't blame the rest of us for starting to think on slightly conspiratorial grounds. They did steal the great election of the year 2000 and they somehow fixed the Supreme Court of the United States, that sacred place, and got them to go along with it, with the selection, not the election, the selection of George W Bush as president. He wasn't voted for, people didn't want him. And were somewhat mystified that he ended up with it."---


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Yawn...
I see Infowars are into a bit of quote-mining

But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Quite a bit different from flatout saying "The CIA obstructed our investigation".

As for the "We were set up to fail":

Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation.


and for some reason, truthers tend to omit the follow-up quote:

What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.


Both quotes from the Kean/Hamilton book, Without Precedent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. You're leaving out the very important aspect of timing of those quotes against other events.
Edited on Mon Oct-12-09 11:14 AM by eomer
  • Mid-2006: Kean and Hamilton's book is published. Your two quotes would be what Kean and Hamilton thought at that time in 2006.
  • November 2007: press reports reveal that the CIA withheld from the Commission the fact that they had recorded interrogations and also the recordings themselves.
  • January 2008: Kean and Hamilton write an opinion piece that is published in the NY Times, saying that the CIA obstructed their investigation.


The quote by Infowars that you accuse as being "quote-mined" (the first excerpt box in your post) is from that opinion piece in January 2008 and is obviously Kean and Hamilton's reaction to the revelations in November 2007 that the CIA withheld crucial information and evidence and thereby obstructed their investigation.

So the current state of things is that Kean and Hamilton have disavowed their report. Your quotes of them saying they are happy with their report are outdated and superseded by their more recent statements.

It seems to me that Infowars gave us the right quotes -- you're the one slinging around quotes without the important contextual information that they are outdated and superseded by later statements.

Edit to add: links to one of the November 2007 press reports and to the January 2008 NY Times opinion piece by Kean and Hamilton:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21474.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Eh?
The Infowars piece quotes their book, citing Kean/Hamilton as saying the investigation was flawed because it was underfunded. I pointed out the actual quote from their book, as well as the follow up quote where they make it clear they felt they had succeded.

Infowars then quotes them, on an entirely different issue, as saying:
(The CIA) failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. obstructed our investigation.”


I pointed out that the full quote was:
"But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation."


What exactly do you think would have changed with those videotapes? Nevermind that they would most likely have been insubmissible due to the use of torture as part of the interrogations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Who knows what would have changed if evidence had not been withheld.
Edited on Mon Oct-12-09 12:53 PM by eomer
That's the whole point, isn't it? And once we know (which I would have assumed) that the CIA was withholding information and evidence then the whole investigation is seriously impaired, is it not?

And I don't know what you mean by "insubmissible". There is no such word but maybe you meant inadmissible? If so, that is not an issue -- this was not a trial, there was no such constraint.

Regarding the quotes, I just want us to get a correct understanding of the current views of Kean and Hamilton, which is that their investigation was obstructed by the CIA.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. I agree
Edited on Mon Oct-12-09 01:01 PM by KDLarsen
It's the same deal as the Pentagon tapes. Truthers are going apeshit and demanding to see them, without saying what exactly it would change.

Inadmissible was the keyword. English is not my first language, so hopefully I can be forgiven of that error. Either way, the 9/11 Commission itself was reluctant to use the testimony of Al Qaeda members, since
Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses—sworn enemies of the United States—is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place.
9/11 Commission Report pg 146.
.. and as much as possible tried to get corroborating sources.

My point is, what those tapes would hold would either be "I had nothing to do with it, bla bla bla" or "I am proud to say I taught our 19 brothers how to do xyz".

And regarding the quotes, I'm merely pointing out the quote-mining. Infowars was using quotes made in one context to prop up a quote made in another context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. Forgive my faux pas of not providing a great link, 10/7/09
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 10:00 AM by mother earth
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gore-vidals-united-states-of-fury-1798601.html
Gore Vidal's United States of fury

(He gives a scathing review of Obama here, his latest on 911 follows, added a vid. link:)

---A Scotch is fetched for him as he is wheeled into the corner of the bar. "I was like everyone else when Obama was elected – optimistic. Everything we had been saying about racial integration was vindicated," he says, "but he's incompetent. He will be defeated for re-election. It's a pity because he's the first intellectual president we've had in many years, but he can't hack it. He's not up to it. He's overwhelmed. And who wouldn't be? The United States is a madhouse. The country should be put away – and we're being told to go away. Nothing makes any sense." The President "wants to be liked by everybody, and he thought all he had to do was talk reason. But remember – the Republican Party is not a political party. It's a mindset, like Hitler Youth. It's full of hatred. You're not going to get them aboard. Don't even try. The only way to handle them is to terrify them. He's too delicate for that."

When he compares Obama to his old friend Jack Kennedy, he shakes his head. "He's twice the intellectual that Jack was, but Jack knew the great world. Remember he spent a long time in the navy, losing ships. This kid has never heard a gun fired in anger. He's absolutely bowled over by generals, who tell him lies and he believes them. He hasn't done anything. If you were faced with great problems in chemistry – to find the perfect gas, to gas a population – you won't know for a long time whether it works. You have to go by what people tell you. He's like that. He's not ready for prime time and he's getting a lot of prime time on his plate at once."

Is there any hope? "Every sign I see is doom. But then people say" – he adopts a whiny, nasal voice – "'Oh Mr Vidal, you're so negative, can't you say something nice about America? It's a wonderful country, everybody wants to live here.' Oh yes? When was the last time you saw a Norwegian with a green card who wanted to come here because of the health service? I'll pay you if you can find one."--

--I try to pull him back. Yes, it's clearly the case that 9/11 was in part a blow-back response to US crimes in the Middle East, but he goes much further, and says the Bush administration was "probably" in on it. Where is the evidence for this huge claim? "It would certainly fit them to a T, so you can't blame the rest of us for starting to think on slightly conspiratorial grounds. They did steal the great election of the year 2000 and they somehow fixed the Supreme Court of the United States, that sacred place, and got them to go along with it, with the selection, not the election, the selection of George W Bush as president. He wasn't voted for, people didn't want him. And were somewhat mystified that he ended up with it."---

Gore Vidal: “9/11 Was A Coup D’etat” (link not working, but you can find it, I'm sure.)

"There is no lie so great that you cannot get Americans to believe it."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakeXT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. I think his issue is with NORAD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Not just with NORAD.
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 04:50 PM by eomer
He also points out the lack of response from key players until the events had played out and it was too late for a response to do any good. Specifically he points to the inaction of Bush and Gen. Myers but I believe he would also have the same problem with other high-level players like Rumsfeld.

He also says he believes that a response by the Air Force would have been routine and should have happened even if no high-level orders were issued; that in effect the Air Force must have been ordered to stand down. This implies more than just opportunism in the face of the attack -- it would require foreknowledge and complicity at a very high level.

See the section titled "Bush and the dog that did not bark" in http://www.pitt.edu/~kloman/vidalframe6.html">Vidal's essay (same essay that I linked to earlier in this thread).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Not to mention that fact that it gave them carte blanche to
do whatever they wanted and then some. It was the precursor to incredible war time privilege that was used to the utmost, and then Cheney runs the country basically, doing whatever he deems necessary under the umbrella of nat'l security, covered quite a bit in retrospect, all the while profits were plentiful for those no contract bidders (namely his Halliburton). It really is right in your face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yes, exactly.
Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 05:25 PM by eomer
Part of what Vidal does is the same as one of my main points about 9/11 (and I'm humbly certain he thought of it long before I did), which is to look at the big picture. Who benefited from 9/11? Are those people who benefited from 9/11 capable of perpetrating such a thing? Did their actions before, during, and after 9/11 seem to be the actions of actors who committed the crimes and were conscious of their own guilt?

Obviously I'm putting it my own way but I believe Vidal looks at more or less those same questions and comes back with the same answer that I do: that high-level actors in the Bush regime were probably involved in committing the crimes of 9/11.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. Absolutely. We've been suffering at their hands since
the Kennedy days...all those assassinations, the Warren Commission back then was as much of a farce as the 911 Commission. The real power is with covert ops and all who control that money pit of deceit and treachery...no good comes from the lack of transparency or accountability in gov't. There should be justice, but I doubt there will be, but I'm a true believer in karma. It'll get the bums in one fashion or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-16-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Could you explain precidely how the Warren Commission was a...
farce?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sylvi Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
12. I'm holding off until I hear from Stephen King (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. You're kidding, right?
Gore Vidal has spent a good part of his life writing essays and books about American government, politics, and history and has received considerable respect and acclaim in those areas of study.

If Stephen King has done the same I missed it somehow.

Here are their respective Wikipedia entries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_vidal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_king

Please read them over and then come back and confirm you consider them interchangeable on those subjects.

When you're done maybe you can contrast and compare Stephen Hawking (an author) with J. K. Rowling (another author) when speaking on the subjects of cosmology and quantum gravity. Here are their Wiki pages, to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_hawking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.K._Rowling


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sylvi Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-11-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Okay, Richard Martin Stern, then
He wrote The Tower, from which The Towering Inferno was adapted. Or maybe Tom Clancy. He knows a lot about terrorists and NORAD and stuff. I like to get my opinions from experts, you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. You missed your chance with Stern, didn't you?
Edited on Mon Oct-12-09 05:54 AM by eomer
He died in October 2001, shortly after 9/11/01.

But if he were alive, his case would be quite different from that of Gore Vidal, wouldn't it? As far as I know Stern did not study the engineering aspects of high-rise buildings. (I stress as far as I know. If Stern was trained in structural engineering then, of course, that would be a relevant fact in weighing his opinion.) Gore Vidal, on the other hand, has spent much of his life studying American politics and government.

If Vidal were expressing an opinion about the engineering aspects of the WTC tower failures then I wouldn't think his opinion would carry any particular weight, just like I don't think Stern's would (as far as I know). But when Vidal is speaking about American politics, I for one would like to listen because I'm interested in learning from someone who has studied a subject extensively. That is not to say that I accept his ideas without question but I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand as you apparently do.

It's a discussion forum where the main point is to discuss ideas. So the ideas of an acclaimed student of American politics seem to me to be a very appropriate and welcome contribution, when the topic is American politics.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Have you consulted with your conspiracy theorist avatar, Frank Zappa?
Here is his famous appearance on Crossfire in 1986:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc

This is the appearance where he told Robert Novak that we were headed toward a "fascist theocracy".

Frank Zappa is someone I really wish were still with us -- I'd love to hear his opinions on 9/11. A very smart guy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sylvi Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. No, but I did unlock the secrets of the Universe
by listening to the Apostrophe album and doing some really good shrooms. You'd be amazed at what a combination of Frank and psilocybin can reveal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. I'd be willing to bet he's a firm believer in the orchestrations
Edited on Mon Oct-12-09 06:10 PM by mother earth
that have brought us to the ruin we are in are not coincidental, or done accidentally on purpose. Hell he knows a plot when he sees one. I'll ask him, since I hear he's got a home not too far from here. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zinnisking Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
26. I heard on Noam Chomsky on NPR years ago.
A caller brought up the issue of Sep. 11. Chomsky said that he didn't believe
that the government had a hand in Sep. 11, but a lot of smart people and some of his colleagues do.

Chomsky has class. He is the salt of the earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC