US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News :: International
The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
18 Jan 2006
The Hoax-Addicted Left
The latest example of the Left embracing a known hoax as almost as valid as the truth this comes to us from Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, who, in a December 22, 2005, op-ed piece in the Boston Globe, recounted the story of a college student who was rousted by two government agents, because he had gone to the library in search of a copy of Mao Tse Tung's Little Red Book. Two days later, the Globe reported that the student had admitted to fabricating the tale, as any sensible person would have suspected in the first place. While the senator did not respond to this revelation, he did send out his spokeswoman to explain, "even if the assertion was a hoax, it did not detract from Kennedy's broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance."

This, however, was not one errant detail in an otherwise convincing argument. In fact, Kennedy had no broader point. The Little Red Book story was his sole example of government surveillance gone mad, and it was a lie. Moreover, the senator did not even attempt to explain how this fictitious incident was relevant to the NSA's electronic surveillance, the Patriot Act, or any other power the president has used in the War on Terror.

The student had claimed to have been visited by agents from the Department of Homeland Security, which further refuted the story, since DHS doesn't even have agents of its own. Yet a man who was in the Senate at the time that it created that department (Kennedy was one of nine who voted against it) did not even bother to check the veracity of the kid's tall tale before spilling it onto the pages of the Globe.

If this behavior were peculiar to Ted Kennedy, it would be easy to laugh off, as all his words and actions typically are. However, the perpetuation of such wild rumors and hoaxes has long been the standard operating procedure for his colleagues on the Left. For example:

The 60 Minutes story suggesting that Bush had gone AWOL from the Air National Guard was discredited by bloggers literally overnight, but that didn't stop Democrats from repeating the false charges throughout the remainder of the 2004 campaign. They even used the fraudulent CBS report in a media offensive called "Operation Fortunate Son," almost a week after the incriminating documents obtained by that network were discovered to be forgeries.

In May of 2002, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, took to the Senate floor armed with a grossly misleading New York Post headline, which read, "BUSH KNEW."

"Bush knew what?" she demanded. She might have directed that question at the Post, whose accompanying article did not back up the sensational charge. Instead, she used the question to suggest that the president had advance knowledge about the 9/11 attacks, and allowed them to happen anyway. Two months later, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-GA, repeated Mrs. Clinton's accusation, and added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war."

Late in 2003, presidential candidate Howard Dean called it "the most interesting theory that I've heard so far" that President Bush "was warned ahead of time by the Saudis." Not only did his fellow Democrats not dismiss him as a crackpot, they would later elect him chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Evasively, Dean added that this was "nothing more than a theory -- it can't be proved." But why not, if it were true? Wouldn't it be likely that some record existed of the Saudis' warning? By writing off that possibility, Dean admitted that his bizarre suggestion was unsupportable, but concluded that an absolute lack of evidence was no reason not to still believe it.

At a 2002 fundraiser, Sen. Clinton was still questioning the legitimacy of the Bush presidency, by pushing her party's "selected, not elected" line. As she was certainly well aware, the Supreme Court did not "select" the president in the Bush v. Gore decision. All it did was put a stop to the illegal recounts in Florida. Nevertheless, post-election media recounts confirmed for any remaining doubters that Bush was the winner. Even if Al Gore had won his Supreme Court case, he still would have lost the election.

If anyone is aware of this fact, it is Al Gore himself, yet the former vice president took the opportunity of the 2004 convention to repeat the charge that Bush had been "selected" president by the judiciary.

Of all the Democrats' fabrications regarding the 2000 election, probably the most outrageous was the accusation that Republicans had "disenfranchised" black voters in Florida. Hearings at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights failed to produce a single person who had been eligible to vote, and been denied the opportunity. Undeterred by the absence of evidence, the Democrats on the commission, led by Mary Frances Berry, released a report concluding that "widespread voter disenfranchisement" had taken place anyway.

During the 2004 election campaign, Sen. John Kerry repeatedly stated that a million black voters had been disenfranchised in Florida in the previous election. If that were true, one would have expected to see a million angry victims marching on Tallahassee. Their absence from the streets, like their absence from the commission's hearings, didn't faze Kerry or his fellow Democrats one bit.

Since Democrats have a particular fondness for racially provocative hoaxes, we can expect that they'll soon recycle the fallacy that black Americans' voting rights are in danger of being repealed in 2007.

The Voting Rights Act, which comes up for review next year, is certain to be renewed; President Bush has already said he intends to sign it. That law was meant as a temporary measure, to address specific abuses that were being committed by Southern Democrats, such as poll taxes and phony literacy tests. It does not establish black people's voting rights. The legislation which did that was the Fifteenth Amendment, and it cannot be repealed other than through passage of another constitutional amendment.

One would expect a former United States senator and presidential candidate to understand this, especially if he markets himself as the nation's leading distributor of racially sensitivity, as Bill Bradley did. In his 2000 Apollo Theater debate with Gore, however, Bradley said, "It is very important to make the Voting Rights Act permanent so that the right to vote will never be endangered for African-Americans." Not only did this statement misrepresent the relevant legislation, but it also fantasized that there were Republican bogeymen hatching a nefarious plot to disenfranchise black voters.

With the help of CBS News and MTV's "Rock the Vote," Sen. Kerry tried to frighten young voters during last year's campaign by claiming that President Bush had a secret plan to institute a draft. Even after Bush forcefully rejected the idea during a debate, Kerry persisted with his accusation, despite his lacking a shred of proof.

Mind you, that's the same John Kerry who, when he returned from Vietnam, participated in the phony "Winter Soldier Investigation," where many of the witnesses who testified about American war atrocities turned out to be impostors. Kerry himself recounted their fictitious testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, charging that American soldiers "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

When confronted with these words during the 2004 campaign, Kerry only conceded that his language might have been "a little bit over the top." To this day, he refuses to admit to having no knowledge that the events he described ever happened.

And let's not forget Mrs. Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy," which she blamed for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Her husband debunked this theory in a televised address, in which he said that his involvement with Lewinsky "constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part, for which I am solely and completely responsible," and that "I misled people, including even my wife." Like the rest of America, Hillary Clinton heard this right from the horse's mouth, but she never retracted her conspiracy theory.
The purpose of these citations is not to suggest that leftists are engaged in a conspiracy to spread hoaxes and promote screwball theories, because they don't need to be. Their belief in the unbelievable comes to them naturally. If it didn't, they wouldn't be leftists.

These are people for whom Marxism has still not been sufficiently discredited. They still believe that American military strength invites enemy attacks, but disarmament and appeasement bring peace. They find it obvious that global warming causes snowstorms and record low temperatures, but they still haven't seen enough evidence to persuade them that human beings exist before birth.

When the truth repeatedly contradicts someone's beliefs, that person has three options: change his mind and accept the truth, reject the truth (consciously becoming a liar), or deny the objectivity of truth and perceive it as a social construct. In the last, whoever prevails determines factuality and truthfulness.

The Left has opted for the last of these choices. This means they can say practically anything they want, and it will become the truth just as long as their bloggers and rapid-response teams carry the day. In this way, they relieve themselves of the burden of scrutinizing their own statements. They can say with total confidence, for example, that the poor get poorer as the rich get richer, without letting all those inconvenient facts and statistics get in the way.

By this redefinition of truth, a hoax is just an idea that may or may not grow into a true story, depending on the success of the teller. This means that as long as a story is being told, it stands a chance of becoming the truth. Thus, Sen. Kennedy stands by his Globe editorial; Dan Rather and Mary Mapes stand by their "60 Minutes" report; John Kerry stands by his hallucinations; and Hillary Clinton stands by her man.

It's not enough for them to believe their own baloney, though. They've got to convince a significant number of others. Their whole point in spinning these tales is to win political power. It does not behoove them to perpetrate a hoax so silly that almost nobody will buy it.

It may be too late for that. As the Left continues to get carried away in that direction, it is severing what few ties still connect left-wingers to the real world, setting themselves adrift in a sad, shrinking little world of their own.

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Re: The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
18 Jan 2006
Uranium forgeries from Niger. Nuff said. The kid who claimed he was visited by police is a republican, just like the person who forged the Bush AWOL documents in order to imply that he never really went AWOL. Yeah right. Who are the suckers here?
Kuwaiti Babies taken from incubators
18 Jan 2006
"Kuwaiti Babies taken from incubators" - Rightwing Hoax

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq - Rightwing Hoax

Tokin Gulf Incident - Rightwing Hoax

Passengers Take Over Hijacked Plane, "Let's Roll" - Rightwing Hoax

The Elections of 2001 - Rightwing Hoax

Need I go on?
People in General Like Conspiracies
18 Jan 2006
Regardless of party affiliation people enjoy conspiracies because it looks like someone might actually be running the show when, in reality, the world is a complex and chaotic place.
Re: The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
18 Jan 2006
This article is a perfect example of polarizing, reductionist, mind numbingly simplistic, shallow, holier-than-thou, partisan rhetoric that passes for political awareness in our society. Sadly, I think the author has a bright political/journalistic career ahead of him (provided that there is an author and this article wasn't generated by a Fox News version of the famous "postmodern essay generator" software).

Perhaps the most ludicrous idea in this article that Republicans and Democrats represent coherent ideological agendas that are polar opposites (Left versus Right) and do not ultimately feed at the same trough, slop supplied by corporate capital.
Re: The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
18 Jan 2006
"Tokin Gulf Incident - Rightwing Hoax" - How is this one a right wing hoax? The President at the time was Lyndon Johnson, a democrat.

"Passengers Take Over Hijacked Plane, "Let's Roll" - Rightwing Hoax" - The passengers did breach the cockpit. However, it was too late...the plane was already put into a dive towards the earth. Too bad, they did manage to kill one of the terrorists before it went down.
Democrats are rightwing.
18 Jan 2006
Only someone brainwashed to believe that Liberal means leftist would fall for the idea that Democrats are left wing.

Where is the proof that the passengers took over the plane? There is no evidence, just anecdotes from cell phone calls THAT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

The plane was shot down.
Re: The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
18 Jan 2006
Hey @ - you want proof that the passengers took over the plane? Where is your PROOF that the plane was shot down. And, by the way, links to unsubstantiated alligations on 9-11 conspiracy websites are NOT proof.
What we do know.
18 Jan 2006
We know that Bush and his administration are habitual liars.

We know that no proof has been released showing that the passengers rebelled.

We know that the FBI refused to release the communications with the jet to the public.

We know that aircraft were in the area available to shoot down the jet.

Witnesses describe what appears to be the jet being shot down.

Sorry Harry, but religious devotion to evil men like George Bush is a sure way to be wrong all the time.

Here's the word from a conservative news source, World Net Daily:

"Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane
'shot down' in Pennsylvania"

WASHINGTON – Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania.

The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol.

During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.
Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.

Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers – immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked airliners, remains the most unclear.

Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane – an unmarked military-style jet.

Well-founded uncertainty as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site.

That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C.

Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down.

On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.

Vice President Cheney: "Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."

NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?"

Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time ...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"

Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"
Zim Israeli Navigation "moves foward"
18 Jan 2006
"captured by..."
Israeli terrorists?
Re: The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
18 Jan 2006
Sorry @, but I'm still waiting for your PROOF. In the article you post from WND, witnesses only "reported seeing a second plane." There is no reference to any eyewitness "describing what appears to be the jet being shot down."

Where are the quotes from the eyewitnesses who saw a missile being fired? Where are the quotes from people who saw missile parts or photographs of misdsile parts.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "proof" in the dictionary. When you deride others like "Huh?" for failing to provide proof of their assertions, you should certainly be able to provide sound proof of your own. Again, statements claiming "we know" are NOT PROOF!
Re: The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
18 Jan 2006
Left, right, up or down, Teddy K. is a murderous scumbag who needs to take swimming lessons. And the left, like the right, plays into what it wants to believe. Examples, Bush is illegally wiretapping people, before this allegation it was, "why didn't they known about 9-11 before it happened?.... And the right will babble that Clinton conducted illegal searches for political gains, etc.
There is enough shite on both sides to go around and both sides spin the shite to suit thier agendas.
Re: The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
18 Jan 2006
The proof that that flight was shot down is that one of the engines landed several miles away, so unless you can explain how that happened as a result of a nosedive straight into the ground as opposed to an explosion in the air, you'll win a prize.
Hey, Harry, prove that the plane was not shot down.
18 Jan 2006
What is the proof that the plane was not shot down?
Shot Down?
18 Jan 2006
If in fact, the plane was shot down, how did the government silence the countless witnesses who would have heard the cannon fire from the F-16's or seen the missiles fired. Maybe you haven't witnessed either, but they make alot of noise. Plus, stray 20mm rounds just don't evaporate.

Another fact, the two F-16's that "intercepted" flight 93 were from the Michigan Air Guard. They were on a training mission when they were given the orders to see what was going on with flight 93. Most importantly, they were unarmed. Air Guard and reserve aircraft are rountinely not armed when they train over populated areas. They were given orders to ram the aircraft and then attempt to eject if flight 93 would not cahnge its course. They only armed interceptor aircraft for this entire region ( south to Virginia, north to New Foundland, and west to Michigan) of the US on 9/11/01 were the two F-15's from Otis that scrambled towards NYC.
One More Thing
18 Jan 2006
If Flight 93 was shot down, basing the decision on what just had happened in NYC and DC, the powers to be would have been more than justified. Could the government have made up the whole passengers fighting back scenario to make heros of these people? Yes, they most certainly could have, but the facts just don't support this. The point you made 9-11 truth sage about the engine being a mile away, it's the 1st time I've heard that, but that could be explained by pyschics. When an aircraft that is not designed to do aerobatics goes into an uncontrollable dive, parts of the plan could be ripped off in flight by the g-forces. It wouldn't be the 1st time an engine has fallen off of a plane.
Re: The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
18 Jan 2006
Why have the moderators of this website allowed this article from the right wing website to stay visible on the newswire? Indymedia is about empowering people to create progressive media for the masses, not as a vehicle for the right wing to attack and divide us.

Exercise some responsibility or find somebody to run this website who understands Indymedia's mission.
Re: The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
18 Jan 2006
Why is this up?

Well for my part atleast (others may have othere thoughts), because I'm a real bastard and a bit of a social darwinist. Anyone taken in by this trolling isn't likely to be, how shall I say it, the brightest bulb on the circuit...well that and it doesn't stricly violate our editorial policy (I don't think).

If we hide it then we encourage it because they can come back with "Oh poor me I've been censored" or possibly "Hah can't stand the truth", it tends to take people a _long_ time to get sick of that.

Though this is not a local story so I am moving it to "elsewhere", anyway ignore it or shout into the whirlwind as you see fit...who knows maybe another editor will decide to ax it <shrug>
Wes' questions are the questions of the duped.
18 Jan 2006
I'm sure rumors were flying during the darkest days of the Third Reich. I can imagine one neighbor saying to the other, "That smoke coming from the internment camp over the hill there is the smoke of Jews tossed into the ovens by the Fuhrer!"

Hans, the patriotic neighbor replies, "You and your conspiracy theories!"

"Really," the neighbor replies, "I was in town and one of the guards told me that they were tossing Jews into the ovens after gassing them!"

"Absurd!" complains Hans. "If that were true, where are the witnesses? Where are the reports in the newspapers and on the radio? No one could cover something like that up!"

And like some of the people who troll this IMC, Hans, more likely than not, under the spell of patriotism, secretly reports his neighbor to the Reich.
Free Speech Anyone...Diversity ?
18 Jan 2006
I'm not throwing out right wing propraganda, I'm stating facts, or more correctly, the most plausible scenario.
So @, like the typical person on the far left, or far right for that matter, you believe in free speech and being all inclusive, but only when you agree with what others say.
The next time White Revolution comes to Boston , instead of strutting around yelling with your panties all wound up, you ought to talk with them. Judging buy the way you treat the opinions of others (and mine ARE NOT far right rants, read them closely), you actually have alot in common with them.

You're right though, I did think that the editors at IMC would hide my posts, but I guess they're showing that they are open to the ideas of others, unlike you.
Re: The Left - Addicted to Hoaxes
19 Jan 2006
I like the analogy, @

keep up the great posts.
If I'm Wrong...
19 Jan 2006
...then explain to me how the government hushed up all these people who would have witnessed the shooting down of Flight 93 ? If a plane is flying at say, 15,000, the incident would visible from literally miles and miles away? The site of this incident was not that far from Pittsburgh, kinda of a congested , heavily populated urban area. Yeah, it did crash in a rural area, but if you're fimiliar with that part of Pa., it goes from country to city pretty quick. I'm wondering, how could they cover it up? If you can give me an explanation that sounds somewhat plausible and not like the rantings of a paraniod conspiracy theorist, I'll listen. Oh, and @, don't compliment yourself under the name "(b)".