Doug, Thanks for the link to the 2/1998 document and pass the word along to people who defend the Bush administration's conspiracy theory about 9-11. Specifically, call upon them to ask for "good faith distraction material", instead of what we are getting across the board from the Bush administration.
Now I'll repeat my observation which you haven't answered: --why might Bush not be a conspiracist, i.e., a person with a theory about a group of two or more persons engaging in a collective act with evil intention? In fact, a rather sane reaction to the idea of 19 box-cutter- holding men (Arab or otherwise) and a man in a cave (Arab or otherwise) doing as much damage as was done on 9-11-2001 is precisely: "wow, talk about a wild conspiracy theory!". Paul Z. --On Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:06 PM -0400 Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Connoisseurs of conspiracy might want to check out a 1998 report on Defense Department declassification procedures, prepared by the consulting firm Booz Allen & Hamilton, posted to the Federation of American Scientists website <www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/ dod_opsec.html>. They recommend that "[t]he use of the Internet could reduce the unrestrained public appetite for 'secrets' by providing good faith distraction material." As an example of such material, they suggest "Diversion: List of interesting declassified material? i.e. Kennedy assassination data." So, consider this, conspiracy theorists: instead of analyzing all the rich material about capitalism and empire on the public record, you're doing the Pentagon's work for it by pursuing "distractions." You'd almost think it's a conspiracy.
*************************************************************** THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001, P.Zarembka, ed, Elsevier, 2006 http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/volume23.htm ***************************************************************
