oil & drugs, the conspiracy
Great conspiracy site here. The writer in question is Michael C. Ruppert, ex-LAPD. His special interest is CIA involvement in narcotics. I really recommend reading his testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Many of the articles appear to be well-researched and argued (this and that); the one that is generating the controversy is this one that argues the CIA had foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks and did not act. It seems a bit rushed and I don’t agree with it. Nonetheless, there are some juicy tidbits: you have major sources saying a) the war against Afghanistan was planned before the attacks and b) the CIA had a chance to grab bin Laden in July and did not. Most intriguingly, the source for the second point, Le Figaro, is owned by the Carlyle Group, which connects the Bushes to the bin Laden family. And, if the Figaro article is to be believed, bin Laden was being visited by family members, meaning he’s not the “black sheep” they claim him to be.
Okay, enough. I have a massive weak spot for conspiracy stories. And I confess that I deal with them strictly as stories and not so much for their truth value that’s way too much work. I know that’s degenerate postmodernism, but hey, that’s how I’m livin’. This one I find pretty good. Most conspiracy narratives fail when they try to explain too much. Most are an attempt to debunk official stories (the, er, ‘metanarrative’), but when they argue, say, that Jesus was an alien, they are themselves turning into a metanarrative. This one stays fairly close to home no claims that the CIA killed Jesus in an illicit drug operation, or anything like that. The touchy part is the inclusion of the Bushes in the conspiracy, which is going a little over the top. Although, hey, Bush Sr. was head of the CIA, as I’m sure we all know…