I ask, because it seems like
anything which deviates from the official story as handed down by the White House is fair game to be slagged off as "conspiracy theory."
Investigative journalists didn't used to regurgitate press releases and call it news. They questioned received truths. Where are they now? When you do that today, what do you get called?
I'm not even talking about 9/11. I'm talking about
any story. Dispute the White House's version of events, and this is how you get slapped down, and told in no uncertain terms that line of inquiry is out of order:
Q Thank you. Can you describe what the United States knows about the conditions under which President Aristide left Haiti? Do we know, did he leave of his own? Was he forcibly --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's nonsense. I would just say -- I've seen some of the reports.
Conspiracy theories do nothing to help the Haitian people move forward
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040301-4.htmlQUESTION: Congresswoman Maxine Waters told us that she had spoken directly with Aristide, who claims over and over again saying he was kidnapped, that the coup was completed by the Americans, they forced him out, they disabled his American security force; basically saying that he did not resign, he was forced out, America completed the coup.
MCCLELLAN: I think I just answered a question to that effect. As I said, it's nonsense, and
conspiracy theories like that do nothing to help the Haitian people realize the future that they aspire to...
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/01/se.01.htmlMR. McCLELLAN: ... And it was -- it's interesting to see the
conspiracy theories that are out there, because there are certain privacy issues always involved when the National Guard or any government agency releases information.... I'm just amazed by the kinds of
conspiracy theories that some have chosen to pursue. The facts are very clear. But there are some that are simply not interested in the facts. And the American people deserve better.
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-234.htmlQ: -- the personal record of a President is --
Scott McClellan: No, hang on, Helen, hang on. I've said from this podium, if we have new information that comes to our attention that relates to this issue, we have made it clear we will share that information. You're asking me to go and chase rumors. There was a
conspiracy theory --
Q: I think --
Scott McClellan: Hold on, hold on, Helen. There was a
conspiracy theory made by one individual, when everybody he accused of being involved in that said, it's ridiculous, didn't happen.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_08.phpTucker Carlson beats this discrediting drum all the time:
Why is Halliburton so darn bad? Well, that's a long story, a
conspiracy theory, really, too complicated to explain here, or, for that matter, anywhere.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/28/cf.00.htmlIt is the ugliest possible
conspiracy theory and it's a destructive one, too. If you don't like Ashcroft's policy, attack them, critique them. But don't accuse him or any other American of knowing about 9/11 in advance. It's just too much.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/09/cf.00.htmlSo much is happening: Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest press conference, a court ruling on whether the recall will go forward, not to mention Gray Davis' latest
conspiracy theory.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/20/cf.00.htmlFRANKEN: And remember, they warned in February of 2001 that a catastrophic terrorist attack was coming? And remember what the president did? Nothing. He appointed...
CARLSON: That's part of your
conspiracy theory, Al. But the fact is...
FRANKEN: No, no, no, that's not a conspiracy theory. That's a fact.
CARLSON: Well, it sounds a bit like a
conspiracy theory.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/25/cf.00.htmlAnd if journalists aren't cowed into silence by being called "conspiracy theorists", they can always be declared enemies of the state:
WOLF BLITZER: Let me read a quote from the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just out now. "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."
RICHARD PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've said this over and over again, will diminish the threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about is investments in homeland defense, which I think are vital and are necessary.
Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/17/1047749726195.html