Disclaimer: for the record, I do not advocate for 9-11 conspiracy theories.  Additionally, I am not a structural engineer, and thus have little knowledge about the validity of their ‘evidence’, other than what I’ve stumbled upon online and seen on television.

However, in an attempt to demonstrate there is some plausibility, at least in part, to their assertions, consider the third building to collapse that day: World Trade Center Building #7:

Building #7 was not hit by any of the planes, but somehow managed to collapse in a perfect free-fall acceleration that afternoon.  The collapse itself has some historic significance:  it is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires — something previously deemed impossible.   That’s the official record — it was brought down by fires — the first of its kind.  The National Institute of Standards & Technology fact sheet highlights this point, as well as some other findings on the collapse of WTC7.

And now the plot thickens, as far as conspiracy is concerned:  The owner of WTC7, Larry Silverstein, stated in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY jointly decided to pull the building:

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

WATCH the clip of the documentary:

Click here to view the embedded video.

I’ve read that for a building to collapse into its own footprint, as WTC7 did, ALL of the load bearing members must fail at the exact same moment — something achieved in controlled demolitions.  Assuming this is true — again, I’m not a structural engineer — there wouldn’t be enough time (in the hours between the plane attacks and building 7’s collapse) to rig such a massive building for controlled demolition.  It would have had to have been rigged with explosives well before the attacks, etc. etc.

See how these conspiracy theories are born?  But Again — just for the record — my knowledge in structural engineering is non-existent, so I can’t guarantee the validity of the statements I’ve made towards that end.  This is merely an attempt to provide a bird’s eye view into a common 9-11 conspiracy theory.

We’ll probably never fully understand all that transpired on 9-11, outside the official record, but as you can see, there are often compelling questions that underline these conspiracy theories; enough to make a reasonable person sit up, scratch his head, and wonder, WTF?  Which, of course, isn’t to say there aren’t legitimate answers out there that could, once and for all, put each and every one of these questions to rest.

This is why it is deplorable when the establishment sets out to destroy the reputation and marginalize anyone who doesn’t mechanically parrot whatever the establishment has deemed the ‘acceptable’ explanation for this Goliath of American disasters. Take Van Jones, who was pushed out of the Administration for having reservations, at one time or another, about 9-11:

Jones, who joined the administration in March as special adviser for green jobs at the CEQ, had issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition in 2004 from the group 911Truth.org that questioned whether Bush administration officials “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war” and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.

And of course, as these conspiracy theories have spread like wildfire, the Administration has resorted to appointing people, like Cass Sunstein, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which oversees policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.  Sunstein advocates for the “cognitive infiltration” of groups who advocate for “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11:

[Sunstein] argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.

But doesn’t Sunstein and others miss the point by not addressing the underlying cause of all this paranoia?  The point is that our government consistently acts in ways that erode public confidence in the accountability of government officials. This results in an environment that actually fosters paranoia and suspicion — an environment primed for incubating conspiracy theories.

There would be very few conspiracy theories if the government routinely launched independent investigations in a timely and transparent manner; thereby exemplifying its commitment to the rule of law.  This is about bridging the trust gap between the people and their government.  Attempting to infiltrate American conversations with government shills will only exacerbate public distrust — not quell it.

U.S. FAILURES IN INVESTIGATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Despite the fact the WTC Building #7 conspiracy theory has floated around since 9-11-2001, the government actually delayed its investigation of the building for half a decade.  The reason?:  It decided NOT to hire new staff to support such an investigation.  This meant much of the evidence on the ground had been hauled off and disposed of years before the investigation was actually completed, thereby ensuring other independent sources couldn’t verify the government findings:

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. [...]

It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.  [...]

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Considering the US government throws money to the wind daily, it would come as a shock to most Americans to learn their government scoffed at hiring new staff members to conduct a thorough and timely investigation into one of the most catastrophic crimes ever committed against the United States of America: 9-11.  Do you see how this plays right into the hands of the conspiracy theorists?  You couldn’t make this stuff up.

And now we have a new President whom we hoped would bridge that trust gap between government and people.  And how has Obama responded?  Whenever he is asked whether he will appoint a special investigator to investigate the most egregious crimes of the Bush administration, including misleading us into an illegal war, torturing detainees, warrantless wiretapping, and the controversial firing of eight U.S. federal prosecutors, he routinely answers:

I prefer to look forward, not backward.

Talk about obliterating the trust between government and people!  But Obama took it yet a step further.  He actually threatened the British government from allowing its High Courts to reveal Bush Administration crimes, and has also intervened to shut down similar lawsuits in US courts.  Did you get that?  President Barack Obama is conspiring with administration and DOJ officials to blatantly cover up Bush Administration crimes.

And yet, isn’t that essentially the cornerstone of 9-11 conspiracy theories? — that the government has allegedly engaged in a conspiratorial cover-up of a heinous crime which members of the political establishment either orchestrated, or knowingly allowed to be carried out?  You don’t need to appoint Cass Sunstein, Mr. President.  You need to appoint special investigators to vigorously enforce the laws of this land.

Conspiracy theories will continue to thrive and flourish as long as accountability remains non-existent in our nation’s Capitol.

He has broken A LOT of promises — ones which were VERY IMPORTANT to his once energized supporters, leaving them thoroughly demoralized. Here are just a few of Obama’s broken promises:

• He would not come to Washington and cut back door deals with entrenched interests — there would be complete transparency during health care negotiations (on C-SPAN), and everyone would get a seat at the table.  Nope.
• He would not allow lobbyists nor those with conflicts of interests to serve in his administration.
• A public option would be a key component of any health care bill, and he promised not to mandate that Americans purchase health insurance from ‘for profit’ health insurance companies.  He then did the very opposite once elected.
• Americans would be able to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and priced lower than in the U.S., and he’d allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.  Nope, instead he cut a back door deal with the Pharmaceutical Industry agreeing to ban it.
• As President, he would recognize the Armenian Genocide (he used very strong language on this matter).  However, once elected he refused to acknowledge it as genocide (when asked by reporters) in Turkey, and he then proceeded to lobby Congress this week to deny a vote on Resolution 252 that would have made such an acknowledgment.
• He would close Guantanamo Bay immediately, and to restore habeas corpus.  Nope, he plans to keep suspects imprisoned indefinitely without trial, and Guantanamo Bay remains open for business.
• He would reject the Military Commissions Act, which allowed the U.S. to circumvent Geneva Conventions in the handling of detainees.  Nope.
• In the spirit of transparency he would amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.  Nope.

So naturally, I would have expected to see some of this mentioned on the site of this new ‘grass routes movement’ calling itself the Coffee Party. On the contrary, they don’t seem to advocate for a single issue or policy proposal; the group seems completely void of substance.

Take the Coffee Party’s Mission Statement:

The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

“Cooperation”?! That sounds A LOT like “BI-PARTISANSHIP” to me. You know, the term Obama uses as a means to promote corporatist (anti-populist) policies under the cover of “a need to compromise with Republicans or ‘Centrists’.” Let’s face it, President Obama has rhetorically opted for bi-partisanship as a means to crush meaningful change since the very first day he took office. And yet this Coffee Party is ironically parroting Obama’s key talking point in their ‘grass routes’ mission statement? Could this group be shilling for Obama’s political arm — the now crumbling Organizing For America?

There’s nothing in that Coffee Party’s mission statement that suggests a move towards populism or an effort to pull Obama further to the Left (back towards the promises he ran on). Wouldn’t that be the equivalent to what the Tea Party is trying to accomplish from their end? Aren’t Tea Partiers, as delusional as they may be, trying to pull Republican politicians towards populist policies important to them?

Whereas Tea Partiers seem disenchanted with both the Republican party and the government, Coffee Partiers seem contented with the Democratic Party and the government. The only issue that seems to resonate with the Coffee Party is Republican obstructionism. In fact, I couldn’t find a single criticism of the President, nor a mention of Democratic betrayals on their entire site. Some ‘grass routes’ movement!

The group asks every Coffee Party member to sign the following Civility Pledge:

As a member or supporter of the Coffee Party, I pledge to conduct myself in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom I disagree. I value people from different cultures, I value people with different ideas, and I value and cherish the democratic process.

It appears this group is more interested in making a statement about the ugliness they see at Tea Party gatherings than they are in actually promoting policies that might improve Americans’ lives. Their elected Democratic representatives (who control all branches of government) have been selling them out for one year now by putting entrenched interests above their own, and Coffee Partiers don’t have a single thing to complain about with regards to their own party?

Watch this video (off their home page) which the Coffee Party is using to sell themselves, and then tell me if you believe these people are issue-driven:

If this were a Tea Party video, you’d hear a lot of passionate — admittedly crazy-sounding — angst about how their party and government is disappointing them. Tea Partiers joined together as a ‘grass routes movement’, because they feel very strongly about specific issues. The Coffee Party doesn’t seem to stand for anything, beyond getting together to sip lattes.

Surely they must have a strong feeling about some issue of importance to Americans (in the midst of two wars, a horrific recession, and a government that is no longer responsive to the people)? Issues drive movements, not Kumbaya gathering. It’s as if the DNC itself has choreographed a “grass routes movement” void of the populist fervor that once drove Organizing For America.

Related posts:

1. Obama’s Betrayal Of The Left Spells Problems For The Democratic Party
2. Bill Moyers Journal: Why Robert Kuttner’s ‘Party Line’ Mindset Ensures The Status Quo

The resolution calls upon the President of the United States:

(1) to ensure that U.S. foreign policy reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the U.S. record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution; and

(2) in the President’s annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide to characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide, and to recall the proud history of U.S. intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.

The resolution is basically a formal acknowledgment by the United States of America of the first genocide of the 20th Century.  It essentially proclaims that the U.S. government is NOT a Holocaust denier, and it includes quotes from former US Presidents (including Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush) who publicly acknowledged the Armenian genocide in speeches during their respective terms.

One quote included within the body of Resolution 252 was made by none other than Adolph Hitler, acknowledging what he personally had taken from the preceding Armenian genocide:

As displayed in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying ‘[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?’ and thus set the stage for the Holocaust.

That quote exemplifies how deranged leaders often look back to previous massacres and genocides in gauging how the international community might deal with them should they too embark on the annihilation of a targeted group.  Unfortunately, in Washington, DC, lobbyist threats are far more likely to move politicians than the snuffed out voices of 1.5 million innocent human beings.

Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek warned of repercussions, if the motion passes:

“Turkey and the United States are two important allies,” he said. “We have a shared history over the past 50-60 years. Adopting this resolution will harm relations.”

In a rare show of unity, a powerful Turkish bipartisan parliamentary group is in Washington to deliver that message.

Three US Congresspeople are leading the charge to squash the resolution, as reported by The Hill:

In a February 22 letter to House Foreign Affairs Committee members obtained by The Hill, Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) ask their colleagues to reject a resolution that would recognize the killing of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I as genocide. [...]

“A vote on this resolution will do nothing to rectify the tragedies of the past, but it will most certainly have significant negative consequences on current and future relations with Turkey,” the letter says. Cohen, Granger and Whitfield are all co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on U.S.-Turkey Relations.

The three lawmakers are also working on a separate letter to Reps. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the committee chairman, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the panel’s ranking member, opposing the resolution. The trio is gathering members’ signatures and 14 lawmakers have signed onto the letter to Berman and Ros-Lehtinen. Aides are expecting many more to sign on before that letter’s release on Tuesday.

The resolution was aborted the last time it was introduced in 2007, after aggressive lobbying by the Turkish Lobby and the Bush Administration:

In 2007, the resolution squeaked by the panel with a close vote of 27-21 in its favor. But after intense pressure from Turkey, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) decided against bringing the resolution to the House floor after originally promising to do so.

But some believe that this time around the odds are good for its passage.  According to Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who introduced the resolution for consideration, there are more favorable conditions today than in 2007.

For one, President Barack Obama was rather vocal on the campaign trail in promising to acknowledge the Armenian genocide:

“I also share with Armenian Americans — so many of whom are descended from genocide survivors — a principled commitment to commemorating and ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in world history. As a U.S. senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey’s acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide.“

In 2006, Obama was quoted as saying:

I criticized the secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term ‘genocide’ to describe Turkey’s slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.”

Asserted Mr. Obama, back then: “The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy.”

Mr. Obama also stated unequivocally that “as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”

Of course many will recall that when President Obama finally got the opportunity to make good on his promise in Turkey (April 2009), he opted out.  Could you even imagine an American President choosing not to use the word ‘Holocaust’ or ‘genocide’ while in Germany, so as not to offend any German Holocaust deniers in the audience?  Could you imagine an American President choosing not to use the word ‘genocide’ in Rwanda or in Cambodia so as not to offend any Hutu or former Khmer Rouge genocidaires?

The good news, as far as this resolution is concerned, is that President Obama (unlike his predecessor) has chosen to remain silent on the measure:

… the Obama administration has taken no public position on the measure, set for a vote Thursday by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Aides to senior lawmakers on the committee say there has been no pressure against the resolution from the White House.

Another factor working in favor of the resolution is the now-strained relationship between Israel and Turkey:

The [House Foreign Affairs] committee is strongly pro-Israel, and prospects for passage could be affected by rising tensions between Turkey and Israel, as well as Turkey’s relatively warm relationship with Iran. In the past, Turkey and Israel had friendlier relations, and Israel had quietly lobbied against the resolution.

But after what happened in 2007, Speaker Pelosi in not about to commit to anything:

A spokesman for Pelosi did not say whether or not the House leader would bring the resolution to the floor for a vote if it passed the committee again.

“It’s important to take it one step at a time and see what the committee does next week. Following their action, we can have a discussion with the chairman and others about next steps,” said Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi’s spokesman.

It is long past due for the United States of America to stand up and be counted in acknowledging the Armenian genocide.  To do otherwise is akin to rewarding the genocidaires.

As Thomas Jefferson once eloquently stated, “There is not a truth existing which I fear… or would wish unknown to the whole world.”

UPDATE:

It appears President Obama has once again proven himself to be a spineless, non-principled, duplicitous wimp.  The AP is reporting:

Obama Administration Urges Congress to Wait on Armenian Genocide Resolution

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is urging Congress to hold off on a resolution declaring the Ottoman era killing of Armenians as genocide.

The House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee was scheduled to vote on the resolution Thursday, and appeared likely to endorse it.

But White House spokesman Mike Hammer said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had spoken with the committee’s chairman, Democratic Rep. Howard Berman, on Wednesday and indicated that such a vote would jeopardize reconciliation talks between Turkey and Armenia.

The move breaks a campaign promise by President Obama to brand the killings genocide.

UPDATE 2:

Anyone who cares to see the House Foreign Affairs Committee Mark-Up of the Armenian Genocide Resolution can watch it live HERE.

UPDATE 3:

It passed the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, but remains to be seen whether Pelosi will do what she did in 2007 and deny a Full House vote:

House panel approves resolution recognizing Armenian genocide

Reporting from Washington – A divided congressional panel Thursday voted 23 to 22 to approve a resolution to officially recognize the Armenian genocide despite a last-minute attempt by the Obama administration to delay a vote on the long-debated measure.

Whether the measure will come before the full House remained uncertain. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village), has said he would only bring the issue before the House if there were enough votes to pass it.  [...]

UPDATE 4:

I thought I’d address one of the core arguments being made by some of the critics of this resolution; that being: “It’s not the US’s business to weigh in.”

Here’s Justice Richard Goldstone’s explanation regarding the international community’s responsibility over crimes as grave as genocide, and how the Holocaust in particular changed the fundamentals of international law:

These crimes were so great, he explained, they went beyond their direct victims or the countries in which they were perpetrated, to harm humanity as a whole. This definition, he said, meant that perpetrators were to be prosecuted anywhere, by any country … This rational, he went on to say, constituted the basis for the concept of universal jurisdiction.

In other words the world views genocide as a crime against “humanity as a whole,” and therefore it is in fact OUR BUSINESS — the business of the international community. It is not just a private dispute between the perpetrators and the victims.

So even though the Turkish genocidaires all died evading both prosecution and even vilification during their lifetimes for slaughtering 1.5 million men, women and children, the world still owes it to their victims to set the public record straight — to help thwart Turkish historic revisionism.

Do you believe the Holocaust is our business? After all we have Holocaust museums here in the US (taxpayer subsidized) and yet that was a crime committed by Germans against Jews, Poles, Gypsies, gays, Russians, etc. Why should that incident be our business, but not the Armenian genocide?

Do you believe the Rwandan genocide is our business? How about Khmer Rouge’s genocide in Cambodia? How about Sadam Hussein’s genocide against the Kurds? How do we pick and choose which are to be acknowledged? How do we determine which genocide deniers are to be imprisoned (such as Holocaust deniers in Europe), and which ones are to be placated (Turkish genocide deniers)?

There’s no exceptionalism when it comes to genocide. Genocide against one group is a crime against all of us.

UPDATE 5:

I read this great comment left by Appok over on digg (in response to this post), and I thought I’d share it with readers:

For anyone who needs a contextual footnote to put this article in perspective, here it is:

My great-great-grandfather was a prominent Armenian businessman who owned a number of large orchards in what is now Turkey. He had seven children and four siblings (1 brothers and 3 sisters) each with their own families. The entire extended family consisted of approximately 45 people, many of whom were young children. None of them were active in politics or military affairs. Needless to say they posed no threat to the Ottoman Empire.

Of the 45 people in my extended family, only 2 survived – my great-grandmother and 1 of her cousins.

Acknowledging this genocide isn’t simply a matter historical accuracy, politics, or retributive agenda. Why this bill is important is the same reason why it is a crime to deny the holocaust in Germany. By politicizing this bill, they are essentially turning history into a commodity, to be bought and traded in exchange of political and diplomatic capital. There is a reason why history is taught in school. Hitler used this justification for the holocaust: “”Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

My 2 cents.

Related posts:

1. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Speech Incites Neo-Con Cartwheels

This is not the post of some blogger who is passionate. I am an Arkansan, a liberal, and a former candidate for Lt. Governor against Bill Halter. I have watched ever since 2006, when this millionaire moved back to my state after 25 years and enacted an essential corporate takeover of the Lt. Governor’s office. He bought “credibility” and bought the office after four Democrats, including myself, had spent 9 months criss-crossing the state, talking to the voters, earning voter support. The difference in that election is Halter had $1 million and the rest of us, even though three were legislators, had not raised nearly a third of that amount. He dominated the airwaves and won a low-voter primary runoff against a less-than-stellar conservative Democrat.

In the General Election, Bill Halter supported a gay parent foster ban and opposed marriage equality. Oh, but you know about the speech right, in 2008? One speech, an activist does not make. If Bill Halter is such a supporter of GLBT Rights, why has he ignored numerous calls of assistance to speak out against anti-equality bills in the State Senate or has supported cuts in HIV-AIDs Funding for the Arkansas AIDs Foundation?

In an interview with John McCardle, Bill Halter has back-tracked on EFCA as well as a Public Option.

Come on seriously.

Look, I considered a primary challenge to Blanche Lincoln. All the oxygen in my bid was sucked up by Halter and his ability to buy a command presence. If he was a true progressive, I would support him, but Bill Halter is the single most self-serving individual in American politics today. He’s bad news and will become part of the problem in Washington, D.C., not the solution.

Don’t Drink the KOOL-AID, Progressives. Research, vet, and talk to people in the home states about these progressive wunderkids before you donate your money and our community’s support.

One last thing….why is it Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark, whom Halter claims are his strongest benefactors, not supporting Halter and not even speaking out in his defense? I think thats rather telling, don’t you think?

Related posts:

1. Bill Clinton Turns ‘Politicizing’ Charge On Its Head, As He Turns His Back On The Uninsured

Watch:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The single “My Love” by Paul McCartney & Wings, or the full length greatest hits album, Wingspan, can be downloaded here:

Related posts:

1. Watch: Iggy Pop Does “The Passenger” Live in 1977
2. Watch: Everything But The Girl Perform ‘Before Today’ Live In London ‘99
3. Watch: Curtis Mayfield Performs ‘Move On Up’ Live @ The Hague, 1987

Surely, the networks knew the significance of last night’s election before a single vote was cast, and they clearly saw Coakley’s sliding poll numbers since January 5, when Rasmussen released a survey showing Republican Scott Brown trailing Democrat Martha Coakley by only nine points.

Call me a cynic, but you just have to wonder if the absence of exit polls wasn’t somehow intentional.  Perhaps the beltway media establishment didn’t want to quantify the populist voter outrage which would likely incite a legislative turn to the Left, against entrenched interests.

By not conducting exit polling, the establishment accorded itself the opportunity to reframe the impending Democratic upset in the usual way: Obama needs to move further to the right to placate enraged Independents (whom they routinely misportray as nothing more than disaffected Republicans).

Ryan Grimm of the Huffington Post addressed the establishment’s reaction to last night’s Republican victory in Massachusetts as being focused entirely on the Independent voters; while largely ignoring the base:

With all the talk about “angry independents” deciding the special election in Massachusetts Tuesday night, the inclination among establishment Washington Democrats is to chase after them. Progressives, meanwhile, want the party to deliver on promises made during the campaign.

Not surprisingly, Democratic politicians are already indicating that they will likely shift rightward.  Barney Frank seemed to suggest to Rachel Maddow, in reaction to the upset, “that without support from at least some Republican senators, health care reform, at least in this iteration, wouldn’t happen.”  In other words, he interpreted this defeat as a need to appease the right — as if they haven’t been doing that all along.  That move would certainly help him to water down even further his current banking reform initiative (as would also be necessary to gain Republican votes).

Anthony Weiner “suggest[ed] on MSNBC that maybe it’d really be better to drop health care reform–and pivot to jobs.”

Digby points out that Chris Matthews, in reaction to Coakley’s defeat, has now joined the deficit-hawk choir:

The predicted reverberations are already being felt. Chris Matthews is already going on about deficits being the most important problem in the whole wide world and how his daughter is really worried about government spending and taxes.

And the Democrats are subsequently making it much more difficult to fix the economy by playing into this deficit propaganda themselves.

The usual conservative voices, as one would expect, are all too happy to capitalize on the absence of exit polls.

Here’s Michael Gerson at the Washington Post, suggesting that Obama’s “liberalism” has infuriated Independent voters:

It means that Rahm Emanuel’s “big bang” theory of legislative liberalism is the most foolish political strategy in recent memory. It means that spending political capital on health reform instead of economic recovery and growth was a dreadful error. It means that a crisis that Obama didn’t want to waste has largely been wasted. [...]

There is only one explanation for this remarkable turn of events. Americans thought Obama was a moderate. He certainly sounded like one. But now he is attempting to remake one seventh of the economy in a quick march of party-line votes. In the process, he has alienated independents in large numbers — even in Massachusetts.

Did you get that?  According to Michael Gerson this isn’t about populist outrage from both the Left and Right; this is about Obama (who actually ran on a progressive populist platform) somehow misleading Independents into thinking he was more conservative than he really was.  To Gerson, it would seem Independents have suddenly awakened to discover that Obama and his “liberal” cohort Rahm Emanuel are governing as some kind of commie-liberals.

David Broder never once mentions populist outrage in his column; no talk of Wall Street bailouts while turning a blind eye to the plight of Americans; no mention of Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry giveaways off the backs of hurting Americans.

First he mentions voter concerns about deficit spending, and then he describes just how Republican victor Scott Brown was able to capitalize on the current Health Care Reform bill before Congress:

This allowed Brown to argue that he would vote against the legislation pending in Washington, which by comparison looks more expensive and more bureaucratic and more partisan than the Massachusetts model.

Perhaps subtle to some, but the word “bureaucratic” is actually a lightening rod term within Conservative circles.  It conjures up images of an inefficient government run entity (i.e. the Republican stigmatization of a would-be public option — something which isn’t even part of the bill under consideration).  In reality, the Senate Bill is clearly a giveaway to the private “for profit” health insurance industry — a dream bill to a corporatist like Broder.

The only Democratic politicos Broder spoke to were the ones who seemed to parrot the White House talking points:

“They were critical of Coakley’s campaign, arguing that it was a serious miscalculation for her to break off campaigning and advertising after her easy victory in the primary.”

Like Gerson, Broder implies it is more about ideological differences; meaning the “liberal” Democratic Congress and President are imposing their will on a more “moderate” electorate, and it’s backfired.  Broder gives his readers two false choices to explain the Democratic upset: 1. voter repudiation of liberal initiatives (i.e. runaway spending and government ‘bureaucratic’ health care), or 2. a poorly run Coakley campaign (i.e. the White House talking points).  Yet he never mentions the visible outrage bubbling over from the left, as Obama continues to sell out the American people to serve his corporate masters.

The reality is President Obama has been governing from right of center since the moment he took office.  Liberals feel betrayed.  The Democratic base couldn’t be less energized — thanks to all of Obama’s broken promises, and his backdoor deals with entrenched interests.

Ryan Grimm contends that Independents and liberals have indicated they want essentially the same thing: CHANGE.

A review of surveys of independent and Democratic voters show that both want much the same thing: change. Both groups are deeply troubled by the state of the economy and angered that bailed-out Wall Street firms seem to be the only ones to have recovered from the crisis. [...]

“If Scott Brown wins tonight, he’ll win because he became the change-oriented candidate,” Celinda Lake, pollster to losing Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, told HuffPost before the election results came in. “Voters are still voting for the change they voted for in 2008, but they want to see it. And right now they think they’ve got economic policies for Washington that are delivering more for banks than Main Street.”

Ezra Klein from the Washington Post perfectly sums up the frustration from the Left:

A Democratic Party that would abandon their central initiative this quickly isn’t a Democratic Party that deserves to hold power. If they don’t believe in the importance of their policies, why should anyone who’s skeptical change their mind? If they’re not interested in actually passing their agenda, why should voters who agree with Democrats on the issues work to elect them? A commitment provisional on Ted Kennedy not dying and Martha Coakley not running a terrible campaign is not much of a commitment at all.

Joe Trippi, a longtime party strategist and high-ranking official on the Howard Dean and John Edwards campaigns told the Huffington Post:

“This needs to be a wake up call that people are still demanding change.  I don’t think it is ideological, I don’t think it is left versus right. I think it is outsider versus insider. It is the new way versus people doing it the old way. That is still the carryover from 2008. And whether the Obama administration recognizes that is important. This is a wake up call that they can’t play the inside game.”

Glenn Greenwald weighs in on the establishment’s effort to reframe Coakley’s defeat as voter repudiation of the Left:

The very idea that an administration run by Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel and staffed with centrists, Wall Street mavens, and former Bush officials — and a Congress beholden to Blue Dogs and Lieberdems — has been captive “to the Left” is so patently false that everyone should be too embarrassed to utter it. For better or worse, the Democratic strategy has long been and still is to steer clear of their leftist base and instead govern as “pragmatists” and centrists — which means keeping the permanent Washington factions pleased. That strategy may or not be politically shrewd, but it is just a fact that the dreaded “Left” has gotten very little of what it wanted the entire year.

Senator John Kerry — the quintessential Washington ‘insider’ — has wisely calculated the necessity in addressing populist angst, by attributing it to Coakley’s defeat:

I didn’t need any reminders, but this election encapsulated what was clear in 2006 and 2008 and remains clear today: Americans are angry. They’re mad at Washington and they’re mad at Wall Street. They’ve seen millions of jobs lost and been left no choice but to bail out those responsible. They’re tired of insurance companies that charge exorbitant premiums but don’t deliver decent coverage when they need it. They’re fed up with sending billions of dollars a day overseas for foreign oil. They hate knowing that they pay taxes while powerful interests evade taxes and hide money overseas in Cayman Island bank accounts. And they expect all of us, Democrat or Republican, to fight for them.

So what should those on the Left take away from these dueling-message efforts?  In the future, if Progressives intend to send a ‘resounding’ message by abandoning Democratic candidates, they’d be well served to at least hire an independent polling company to conduct exit polls that accurately quantify the “why?” for voter behavior.

If exit polls aren’t there to capture the true underlying motivation of the voters, then the beltway establishment will gladly define it for them.

UPDATE:

Thanks to cbsunglass at FireDogLake for pointing out a newly released Research 2000 Massachusetts Poll.

Though not an exit poll, it reveals exactly what we hoped to show. Fascinating how this has been largely overlooked by much of the press all day.

Here are some of the findings of that poll:

• 95% of voters said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.
• 53% of Obama voters who voted for Brown and 56% of Obama voters who did not vote in the Massachusetts election said that Democrats enacting tighter restrictions on Wall Street would make them more likely to vote Democratic in the 2010 elections.
• 51% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 but Brown in 2010 said that Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.
• Nearly half (49%) of Obama voters who voted for Brown support the Senate health care bill or think it does not go far enough. Only 11% think the legislation goes too far.

Related posts:

1. Gubernatorial Election Result Spin And The Mythical Independent Voter
2. The Redistribution of Wealth In America Continues …
3. Progressive Reactions To The Senate’s Public-Option Compromise

He recently announced that he intends to make a run in the NY Democratic primary for US Senator.  He moved to New York City a year ago.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said to Politico’s Jonathan Martin of Ford’s intentions:

“If he thinks that its an appealing argument to position yourself as being somebody who will stand up to Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, well I don’t think we need another Joe Lieberman.”

Ouch!  I suspect that sort of sentiment will be a favorite talking point of his opponent, Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

Brave New Films has put together a scathing new compilation of video clips showing Harold Ford, in his own words, stating he’s pro-gun, anti-choice (here he advocates outlawing abortions); boasting that he supported Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, is in favor of NSA warrantless wiretapping, wants the 10 Commandments posted in courtrooms across the state, favors school prayer, wants an anti-flag burning constitutional amendment, and opposes same-sex marriage.  Ann Coulter states that Harold Ford is her favorite Democrat, which speaks volumes.

WATCH:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here’s Harold Ford on Chris Matthews parroting Dick Cheney talking points, while trying to make the case that torture should not be investigated:

FORD: … So in this sense I think having the conversation about what happened and whether or not at Guantanamo Bay, and I’m not as outraged as some are about it because as much as I think some of those techniques were enhanced and might have risen to a level of torture you have to remember when this was occurring.

This is 2002, 2003. The country was in a different place, in a different space. And if you were to say to me, as an American, put aside my partisanship, that we have an opportunity to gain information that would prevent the destruction of an American city, to prevent killings in American cities, and we have to use certain techniques, I’m one of those Americans that would have voted a certain way, Chris. And that polling said it might have been torture, but I’m not as outraged.

MATTHEWS: You are veering into Cheney country here. The destruction of an American city. What evidence did you ever have that the enemy had a nuclear weapon that could blow up an American city? Where’d that..that’s Cheney talk. That is..that’s what he uses to justify torture. We have no evidence that any enemy of ours had a nuclear weapon.

And this guy’s running for the Senate seat in the liberal state of New York?

My guess is he’s hoping NY Republicans and conservative Democrats, alike, will fully back him since the GOP has been unable to find a contender of their own to face off against Gillibrand.

Republicans have had plenty of help from Blue Dogs over this last year in obstructing all progressive initiatives.  After the recent health care debacle (courtesy of Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and the other Blue Dogs), it appears to be a promising ‘Trojan Horse’ strategy for a failed GOP.

The UN instituted the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) to oversee the implementation of the new power-sharing government.  Hutu extremists within the government, however, had no plans on allowing such a government to formulate.  They methodically engineered the genocide of the Tutsi population by promoting hate-filled, fear-inducing programming on the two main radio stations (Radio Rwanda and Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines).  Listeners were warned of an impending Tutsi attack and were encouraged to take up arms.  In addition, Hutu extremists in the Rwandan government secretly armed two Hutu extremist militias (the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi).  These would be the forces that would carry out the mass murders using mostly machetes.

The much-needed catalyst for the impending genocide against the Tutsi people came in the form of the assassination of Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana and Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira (both Hutus).  Their plane was shot down, as it prepared to land in Kigali, Rwanda.  The Rwandan government along with the two radio stations immediately pinned the blame on the Tutsi rebels and the bloodbath ensued.

Over the course of approximately 100 days, between 800,000 and 1.2 million Tutsis and Hutu moderates were exterminated in Rwanda.

Responsibility for the assassination of the two leaders has long been in dispute.  The Hutu extremist government — who quickly blamed the Tutsi rebels — denied UNAMIR access to conduct an investigation of the crash.  Roméo Dallaire, force commander of UNAMIR, revealed in his book, Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, that he was convinced the Hutu extremists in the Government had orchestrated their leader’s assassination.

And now, some fifteen years after the genocide, the new Mutsinzi Report is released — a “massive new report by a Rwandan investigative commission into the assassination of President Juvénal Habyarimana”.  Philip Gourevitch of The New Yorker reveals this from the report’s findings:

the assassination was a coup d’etat. At the time of his death, Habyarimana was on the brink of implementing the Arusha Accords, a power-sharing peace agreement with the Rwandan Patriotic Front, a rebel army led by Paul Kagame (who is now Rwanda’s president). But the Hutu Power genocidaires wanted to consolidate their power through their campaign of extermination. Habyarimana, then, appeared to have been killed as a traitor to the Hutu Power cause; but his death was blamed on Kagame and the R.P.F. and turned into fuel for the Hutu Power cause.

The new Rwandan report—known, after its lead author, Jean Mutsinzi, as the Mutsinzi Report—lays out this story in remarkably convincing detail. It draws on a number of previous international investigations and on a remarkable collection of more than five hundred interviews that its own investigators conducted with former officers of the Hutu Power regime and other eyewitnesses, who describe the events before, during, and after the assassination with convincing consistency.

The broad findings are not surprising. What makes the Mutsinzi Report most remarkable is the thoroughness and seriousness of the underlying investigation, which covers not only the events leading up to the downing of the plane. It traces the history of earlier investigations into Habyarimana’s assassination and the genocide, and draws on these findings (which have never before been collected and cross-referenced) to build its own. The Mutsinzi commission brought in independent British ballistics experts to establish the trajectory and origins of the missiles that struck the plane; and, in passages of the report that read like pure farce, they traced the mystery of the black box from the cockpit, which kept disappearing and reappearing and ultimately vanished.

So it appears this case is finally closed.  The Hutu extremists assassinated the Rwandan President (a fellow Hutu) as the catalyst for the Tutsi genocide.

George Mitchell threatened that his country would freeze its aid to Israel if the Jewish state failed to advance peace talks with the Palestinians and a two-state solution.

Mitchell clarified in an interview to the PBS network that the United States would use incentives or sanctions against both sides.

According to American law, Mitchell said, the US can freeze its support for aid to Israel. He added that all options must remain open and that the sides must be convinced about what their important interests are.

The US envoy noted that some progress had been made and that his country would continue its efforts to resume the negotiations.

The American guarantees allow Israel to raise funds at low interest rates and improve the Jewish state’s credit rating. The last time the US threatened to freeze the guarantees was during the term of President George Bush Sr. and former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

Mitchell is reported to be delivering letters to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, outlining U.S. positions, and offering “guarantees” it hopes will relaunch final-status negotiations.

Let’s hope the Obama Administration understands that Israel will never again take them seriously if this turns out to be just another empty threat.  I predict Netanyahu will remain defiant — he’ll call Obama’s bluff on suspending U.S. aid — knowing full well that the U.S. Congress is much more likely to take its marching orders from the Israel Lobby than from a weakened President.

Yes, I’m anticipating another embarrassing display of U.S. impudence (i.e. more Netanyahu intransigence with Obama ultimately cowering away from the threat of suspending U.S. aid) .  Let’s face it, Obama has yet to show a hint of fortitude on any single policy initiative.  Ultimately, he subjugates to entrenched interests — that’s his governing style.  Don’t expect him to finally grow a pair when pitted against the formidable Israel Lobby.

UPDATE:

Mondoweisse has transcribed a portion of the transcript of George J. Mitchell telling Charlie Rose, after much prodding on Rose’s part, that the U.S. has the option of withholding aid at its disposal.  Adam Horowitz seems to believe it’s just a hollow threat that never would have been made without Rose pressing him on it.

UPDATE II:

Here’s the video of Charlie Rose and George J. Mitchell having this discussion.

Related posts:

1. U.S. Pushing Mideast Peace Deal ‘Guaranteed’ To Be Completed in 2 Years
2. Ha’aretz Journalist, Gideon Levy: “Israel Is Addicted To The Occupation”
3. Ha’aretz: E.U. Presidency Document Calls For Division Of Jerusalem & Return To 1967 Borders

Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) showed flexibility Tuesday on the public option, acknowledging the political reality that such a plan probably couldn’t make it through the Senate.

A public plan, Speaker Pelosi said at a press conference, is meant to “hold insurance companies accountable and increase competition,” but Pelosi added that “there are other ways to do that.”

[...]

Good luck in 2010!  You’re gonna need it …

UPDATE:

Thought, I’d add a clip of Pelosi taking a little shot at the President, when she was asked about allowing C-SPAN to film the Senate-House negotiations in the Conference Committee, since Obama had promised this while on the campaign trail.  Pelosi responded:

Really?  There were a number of things we was ‘for’ on the Campaign trail.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related posts:

1. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly: Was For The Public Option Before He Was Against It
2. Breaking News: Sen. Reid On Public Option Negotiations: “We have a broad agreement”
3. Obama’s Silence On Public Option Emboldens Obstructionists