So I didn't listen to Debra Medina on Glenn Beck live this morning, unlike J. Instead I got the endless replay from Michael Berry on the way home. Apparently Mr. Berry has his knickers in a twist because Ms. Medina answered "I don't know" when asked if she thought the US government had any involvement with the 9/11 attacks. Apparently the only correct answer to the question is "no" or else Glenn Beck will mock you and the former city councilman will pile on.

First off, the irony of Glenn Beck mocking someone for not believing the official version of events should be lost on no one. How much time did Beck spend asking questions about a birth certificate? None, right?

Secondly, let's discuss some of the more glorious moments in the history of the United States. Shall we list the times the FBI illegally spied on citizens for expressing different political opinions? All 2000+ of them over 15 years? There are the multiple documented cases of the FBI killing citizens for no real good reasons. Fred Hampton and Vicki Weaver might have something more to say about that if they hadn't been shot dead. We could also discuss some of the more gruesome medical experiments the government decided to conduct on its citizens. Maybe I'm cynical, but given the government's past willingness to visit barbaric indignities upon innocent citizens and then try to cover it up I can see how someone might not believe the feds when they claim innocence.

Finally, I'll ask a reasonable doubt question. There were, in 2001, approximately 1.6 million federal employees. Neither Glenn Beck or Michael Berry or anybody else can say with absolute certainty none of those employees had anything to do with 9/11. If they did, they sure as hell wouldn't admit guilt after the fact, now would they? The evidence would have been shredded before close of business that day.

Now, I don't have any good evidence the government had any direct involvement. I don't think they did; however, I'm not willing to rule the possibility out either. I don't know if there was direct involvement or not, but apparently that's not an acceptable answer if you want to be a "legitimate" Republican candidate. Not being a Republican, it's not really my problem.

Now, admittedly, I'm a cynical bastard with a low opinion of the political process. Given that, you'll excuse me if I think this is yet another attempt to protect the mainstream candidates from insurgents outside the traditional party power structure. Team affiliation trumps principle for too many people anymore. It is more important to elect someone with the right letter after their name than someone who shares your beliefs and principles. I wish the GOP in Texas the best of luck with this approach, but I would think the entire Tea Party phenomenon has pointed out a significant subset of the electorate is sick of it.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box said...

I think government involvement (or the "inside job" theory) is valid, but consisted mainly of looking the other way - a lot of it - mostly due to the multicultural/political correctness brain-filthying of the decade before.
How else do a dozen guys who refuse to speak the language get into the country, stay here a year and a half, pass out wads of cash to pay for everything and cause that kind of destruction, relatively un-noticed til it's all over?

6:08 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home