I put my comments at the end. Peter Hollings
Paul Zarembka wrote: > Listening to Cindy tells me that she calls things as she sees it (Bush as > a 'boil' for a much larger 'infection'). > > Listening to Cindy tells me that she is capable of deciding for herself > whether 9-11 was an inside job. She doesn't need to depend upon either > your nor my opinion about it, nor if and when to use any knowledge gained. Jim Devine wrote: >clearly, you _want_ her to embrace your theory. That's what I was addressing. >Sure, it's our intellectual obligation to poke holes in his theory, >point out his lies, parse his illogic, ridicule his grammar, etc. In >practice, that might help build up support or even keep up morale. But >that doesn't mean that we should embrace poor or incredible theories, >lie, become illogical, speak incorrectly, etc. >By Bush's conspiracy theory, do you mean the idea that al-Qaeda was >behind 911? didn't they take credit for it? >> Then [Sheehan would] have to pepper her talks with long lists > > of individual facts (and "facts") and long lists of possible logical > > connections between the facts in order to prove her case. People don't > > absorb this kind of thing well (except for those of us with Asperger > > syndrome). I believe that the 9-11 truth movement could be a driving political force if it were properly presented to average Americans. First, as Daniel Yankelovich points out in a recent article <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85309/daniel-yankelovich/t he-tipping-points.html>, American public opinion is nearing a tipping point and impatience is building with the status quo in Iraq and elsewhere. What is needed is to give it a push. Secondly, the American public is aware of and supportive of Cindy Sheehan and she has vital mainstream media coverage. Thirdly, I do not believe she would have to "pepper her talks with long lists of individual facts (and "facts") and long lists of possible logical connections between the facts in order to prove her case." That would be a bad strategy. What I would do were I her would be to leak out a single critical fact that disproved a part of the official conspiracy theory and keep repeating this with an additional fact in each successive public appearance. The strategy would be designed to build awareness and get public attention. A good beginning might be to ask her audience for a show of hands for those who had seen "Flight 93". Then she might reply that that story could not be true because the Pittsburgh paper quoted a number of witnesses, including the State Police, who reported pieces of the plane's wreckage eight miles away from the crash site. She doesn't have to allege any particular "conspiracy theory," such as that the plane was shot down. That is unknowable without a REAL investigation. Doing so would destroy her credibility. All she has to do is to debunk the official story and in the process destroy Bush's claim that he is protecting America from terrorists. It would show the war on terrorism to be a sham. Peter Hollings
