The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin

[newthinking]

The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin
By John J. Mearsheimer
Foreign Affairs

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.

Putin’s pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be kept whole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy.

But this grand scheme went awry in Ukraine. The crisis there shows that realpolitik remains relevant -- and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. Now that the consequences have been laid bare, it would be an even greater mistake to continue this misbegotten policy.

Continued:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

[sharp_stick]

1. How dare Ukraine

not do what Putin told them to do.

[newthinking]

2. Your comment indicates you did not read this?

Why peruse and particularly comment on a read if you either are not interested or don't read it?

Read it, then rebut if you still feel it is not a good read?

[The Magistrate]

3. He May Well Have Read It Through, Sir

Because he does not give an unfair characterization of its gist. Mr. Mearscheimer's view boils down to stating that what once was Russia's must remain in Russia's orbit politically and economically, or there will be trouble from Russia, and this is so axiomatic that anyone who disregards it is responsible for the trouble Russia makes over it: in short, 'how dare the Ukrainians want to do something Russia doesn't want them to.' He elaborates on this at some length, but none of it is particularly telling or reflects any significant insight into the situation.

[newthinking]

5. Come on Mag. Be HONEST. We both know he did not read it.

Maybe the four paragraphs, but no way enough to critique it.

[The Magistrate]

8. We Know Nothing Of The Kind, Sir

If he simply guessed, it was a lucky guess, since it was quite accurate.

You do not know the person's reading speed. It did not take me more than a few minutes to read the thing, and if someone simply skimmed, they missed nothing; it is pretty repetitive and lacking original analysis or observation....

[sharp_stick]

4. Oh no I read it

earlier today.

I just boiled it down to his root meaning for those that want the Readers Digest version of the essay.

[zipplewrath]

6. Doesn't really know a "liberal"

Much of his analysis is correct, if a bit amoral. However, he assigns to "liberals" a series of foreign policy accomplishments that are hardly liberal and not actually executed by liberals. The policies he describes were conducted by members of the Clinton administration, and continued by the Bush W. administration, and supported by individuals like McCain. There is no way to describe most, if any, of those folks as liberal. Furthermore, your common liberal wouldn't particularly advocate the expansion of NATO. Heck, your garden variety of liberal would advocate the disillusion of NATO and the exit from deep military involvement in eastern or western Europe.

The group of people responsible for the decisions to which he refers are a cabal of individuals who attach themselves to whomever is in power to advance a fairly narrow set of goals having to do mostly with expanding the economic sphere of influence of the US around the world. NATO/NAFTA/WTO/World Bank and a host of other alphabet soups is their accomplishment. It isn't particularly liberal, and for that matter many of the conservatives don't want much to do with them either.

[newthinking]

7. COFP, by the way, is a liberal organization

Look at the editors bios.

He is not criticizing "liberals", but rather saying that the foreign policy on our side has gone awry and could use examination.

(on edit) I see what you are saying and agree. This is not "liberal" policy, but rather some of our liberal institutions have strayed (IMO) and moved more towards less thoughtful approaches.

[The Magistrate]

11. Rather A Stretch, Sir

Board of Directors

Carla A. Hills
Co-Chairman; Chairman and CEO, Hills & Company, International Consultants

Robert E. Rubin
Co-Chairman; Former Secretary of the U.S. Treasury

David M. Rubenstein
Vice Chairman; Cofounder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group

Richard N. Haass
President, Council on Foreign Relations

John P. Abizaid
Senior Partner, JPA Partners LLC

Peter Ackerman
Managing Director, Rockport Capital, Inc.

Zoë Baird
President, The Markle Foundation

Alan S. Blinder
Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton University

Mary Boies
Managing Partner, Boies & McInnis LLP

David G. Bradley
Chairman, Atlantic Media Company

Tom Brokaw
Special Correspondent, NBC News

R. Nicholas Burns
Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics, Harvard Kennedy School

Steven A. Denning
Chairman, General Atlantic LLC

Blair Effron
Partner, Centerview Partners, LLC

Martin S. Feldstein
President Emeritus, National Bureau of Economic Research

Laurence D. Fink
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock

Stephen Friedman
Chairman, Stone Point Capital

Ann M. Fudge

Pamela Gann
Trustee Professor of Legal Studies and George R. Roberts Fellow, and Senior Fellow of the Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College

Thomas H. Glocer

Peter B. Henry
Dean, Stern School of Business

J. Tomilson Hill
Vice Chairman, The Blackstone Group

Susan Hockfield
President emerita, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Donna J. Hrinak
President, Boeing Brazil, The Boeing Company

Shirley Ann Jackson
President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Jami Miscik
President and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.

Eduardo J. Padrón
President, Miami Dade College

John A. Paulson
President, Paulson & Co.

Ruth Porat
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Morgan Stanley

Colin L. Powell
United States Army (Ret.)

Richard E. Salomon
Managing Partner, East End Advisors, LLC

James G. Stavridis
Dean, The Fletcher School

Margaret Warner
Senior Correspondent, PBS NewsHour

Vin Weber
Partner, Mercury.

Christine Todd Whitman
President, The Whitman Strategy Group

Daniel H. Yergin
Vice Chairman, IHS

[newthinking]

14. I don't disagree. It is more "DLC" "liberal"

It does have some more liberal creds in editorship (New Yorker, etc). But in general I agree. Which makes it all the more interesting to see this point being made by the organization.

[The Magistrate]

15. Best To Say 'I Was Wrong', Sir, Rather Than Crawfish Like That

It is not by any stretch a liberal organization, and you really ought to have known that already....

[newthinking]

16. You sure you want to turn nasty there?

Not going to play "SIR".

Others can see my intent (as well as someone's attempt at provocation).

[The Magistrate]

19. What All Can See, Sir, Is That Do Not Know Much About The Organization

And did not bother to inform yourself before commenting. To be blunt, this pattern marks a great many of your comments on current events.

[newthinking]

22. OK. So your point is.....

you feel I should genuflect to your wise determination that I should be embarrassed in your presence?

You really should read yourself "SIR". It is also entertaining.

[The Magistrate]

24. I Do Not Care What You Do, Sir

I merely point out that calling the CFR a liberal organization is industrial-strength talking through one's hat, and that this is far from the first time you have displayed your skill and mastery of that art....

[zipplewrath]

13. And he works a college campus

He's a college professor so I suspect he actually knows a liberal or two. My real point is that he is assigning a supposedly political ideology to a set of policies that I don't think really springs from one. I'd guess he was using the expression "liberal" in a more academic sense (liberal arts) but even there it doesn't work because I don't see how it aligns with that philosophy either, much less springing from people whose work could ostensibly be classified as such.

We haven't had a "liberal" administration since Carter at best and as I say, even looking at the individuals within the various administration that would have been involved in these decisions, you won't really find a "liberal" among them. And I think it does his larger point a disservice because the phenomenon he is discussing is one that has been repeated over and over in this country and it is a particular brand of political animal that has pushed these decisions repeatedly. They are still with us and if we don't start recognizing them outside of the standard political conflicts, they will continue to affect US policy regardless of party or political ideology that controls the country.

[newthinking]

21. I can't disagree

One thing you are saying (I think?), is that the current "beltway" "liberalism" is very different from traditional liberalism (and is not really liberalism, but more like what some call neo-liberalism?).

I totally agree. In fact, one shock for me was to see Victoria Nuland execute what is essentially neo-con foreign policy under a Democratic administration. Which goes to show how seriously "un-liberal" modern Democratic administration policy can be.

Like linguists such as Chomsky or Lakoff I am also concerned about terminology being appropriated. Since when language and terminology are lost it reduces the ability to express. Just as I think we see here in our own discussion. I just had not focused on that aspect of the OP. Maybe I should have more. But I also don't want to get stuck in the trap of throwing out an otherwise fairly well argued piece, especially when we live in an era when so much on the subject that has been written is patently false or distorted.

[rus084]

9. really?

I dont think so
Crimea is not annexed , it was democratic change of peoples .
it saved many lives , now in crimea havent war . you can go to Crimea and ask this peoples ," what do they want ?" they answer is "in Russia is better than in Ukraine"

why ukrainians (western ukrainians , they are not ukrainians , they are killers) hate Russia , but Belorussian peoples like us ?

[img][/img]

[newthinking]

12. I don't agree with every point they make

Such as the using the phrase "promotion of Democracy". In terms of Ukraine it is obvious, since the current parties in power were minorities and could not get power through elections previously, that we were not promoting "Democracy", but rather what we saw as our interests.

I agree with you about Crimea.

In fact all the narrative about Crimea in the west has been quite innacurate.

Crimea was given away unconstitutionally (to Ukraine), and it had struggled to correct that long before this year. Crimea had the right to independence and had the ight to their own consitution. Many scholars think that we are treating black as white. That in accuallity it was Ukraine that annexed Crimea unconstitutionally. And this is how many Crimeans think is correct.

Also, I am very aware that the propaganda that the people of Crimea were not represented accurately in the crimean referrendum is false. That is simply a convenient geopolitical talking point. Crimean's have always been very close to Russia in the majority.

It is also false what the narrative is saying about the current state of crimea: It is far more stable, people are far more content and prosperous, than in the rest of Ukraine.

[rus084]

18. ok

if you agree with me about Crimea , then why you posted this thread?


Do you know russians sanctions to europe ?
Europe already havent economic independence for Russia
But Europe havent polican independence for USA

If they need a money , they must give political freedom from US .

Putin make right things , war is not need to Russia , war need to USA .
Then dollar is just paper .

Else we have China , most power economic , if they will sell all dollars , you are fell russians 90's


Sorry if you dont like me , i want just educate english and want what you know russians heavy live at 90's (who help destroying USSR?)

[The Magistrate]

20. Now This, Sir, Is Going To Be Rum Fun To Watch....

[rus084]

23. i'm not a sir , i'm comrade .

in your language it look like not so , in our it will be like "Bro , take pop-corn and watch on this play"

[rus084]

25. why you are not swear me?

[Blue_Tires]

10. I love how every one of these "This is all Washington's fault!" pieces

always whitewashes Putin's past and present, and portrays him is some sort of innocent bystander who was minding his own business until the big, bad USA had to start meddling in Ukraine...

This media love affair with Vladimir Putin has to end...Does anyone on DU still remember the imprisonment of Pussy Riot and all those other protestors? Weren't we discussing them in hundreds of threads a little over a year ago? What about all those anti-GLBT laws that were in the news? What about Putin playing buddy-buddy with Assad? His curtailing of speech rights? His clampdown on electronic freedoms even in this age of Snowden??

DU does realize Putin isn't some post-modern leftist stalwart standing in the face of U.S. imperialism, right?? Or are Putin's sins forgiven here since he granted asylum to the Grand Prince of National Secrets??


Did we discuss all those things on DU, or did I just imagine it??
(FWIW I *am* going crazy, so it is very possible I did imagine it)

[jakeXT]

17. It's interesting to see the CFR say it, although Saker calls him defeated establishment

Now, I have no illusion about Mearsheimer, he is spokesman for what I call the "old Anglo guard", the folks who have been gradually, if partially, displaced by the Neocons, who then got behind Obama, only to be re-displaced when the Neocons skillfully took Obama under their control. In other words, Mearsheimer only speaks for the defeated and resentful part of the establishment, but a still powerful and influential one. His article could also serve as a kind of a "feeler" with the rest of the US "deep state" to see what reactions it triggers.

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/

[The Magistrate]

26. Helluva Site You Link To, There, Sir

Here are some choice excerpts, pulled pretty much on a 'first seen, first copied' basis....


http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/06/very-interesting-admission-by-senior-us.html

"From 1991 (and really even before that) to 1999 Russia was an imperial colony run by a collection of mostly Jewish oligarchs who hated Russia and who literally stole everything they could."

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/07/could-glazev-be-right-request-for-your.html

"There is absolutely nothing that he said that I can argue with .
Ukraine was/is occupied by the US.
His reasoning for the regional war in Europe that can only benefit the US, is spot on.
The Zionists not only don't care about the population of Ukraine, they clearly want them all dead.
No amount of casualties can slow them down.
Ukraine has only 0.2% of Jewish population and yet the government is 99% comprised of Jewish Zionists -this makes no sense.
This whole conflict is directed against Russia, China and Eurasia.
The Zionists hate Slavs because Slavs know more about Zionists than any other race on the planet.
The conflict is not designed to be stopped in Ukraine, it is designed to engulf as much of Europe as possible.
The fact that Russia has people like Glazev in the government is a very encouraging and hopeful sign.'

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/07/frances-1-zionist-bashes-putin-and.html

"All the zionists and quislings working for the empire are coming out to attack Russia. They must be desperate. Hope the Russians could liberate the rest of Europe from this evil empire chains, just like in the time of Czar Alexander'

"At the end of the day, I do not believe that Zionists have a special hatred for Palestinians or even Arabs, much less Russians. Rather they despise "the nations" which stand in their way."

[jakeXT]

27. On the bottom two links you forgot "Anonymous said... "

The first one has some basis in fact as the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs admits. Although I don't know how important it is to mention the fact that many oligarchs had one or two Jewish parents. But they also tried converting...

No. 414 5 Tishrei 5760 / 15 September 1999


THE ROLE OF POLITICS IN
CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN ANTISEMITISM
Betsy Gidwitz

Sources of Contemporary Russian Antisemitism / The Setting / Antisemitism Across the Political Spectrum / Forms of Russian Antisemitism / The Oligarchs / The Road to Oligarchy / The Oligarchs and Jewish Identity / The Role of the Russian Government / Political Antisemitism and the Future of Russian Jewry


...


The Oligarchs

That Jews control a disproportionately large share of the Russian economy and Russian media certainly has some basis in fact. Between 50 and 80 percent of the Russian economy is said to be in Jewish hands, with the influence of the five Jews among the eight individuals commonly referred to as "oligarchs" particularly conspicuous. (An oligarch is understood to be a member of a small group that exercises control in a government. The five oligarchs of Jewish descent are Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Friedman, Vladimir Gusinsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Alexander Smolensky. The other oligarchs are Vagit Alekperov, Vladimir Potanin, and Rem Vyakhirev.)

Perhaps the most famous (and simultaneously the most infamous) of the oligarchs is Boris Berezovsky. In common with most of the other Jewish oligarchs, Berezovsky controls industries in three critical areas: the extraction and sale of a major natural resource, such as oil, as a source of great wealth; a large bank (useful in influencing industry and transferring assets abroad); and several major media outlets (useful for exerting influence and attacking rivals). He also controls a significant share of the Aeroflot airline and the Moscow automobile industry. He is a long-time, close associate of the Yeltsin family and is often perceived as a Rasputin-type figure in his relationship with Tatiana Dyachenko, Yeltsin's very influential daughter. Berezovsky's leading lieutenant is another Jew, Roman Abramovich, a shadowy individual in his early 30s. Abramovich manages Berezovsky's vast oil interests (Sibneft and related companies), arranges major financial and industrial positions in the Russian Cabinet, serves as cashier to the Yeltsin family, and controls access to Berezovsky himself.

...


The Oligarchs and Jewish Identity

The various Jewish oligarchs occupy a range of positions regarding Jewish identity and identification. Vladimir Gusinsky is the founding president of the Russian Jewish Congress, the largest indigenous Jewish organization in the successor states today. His deputy in business, Boris Khait, is a vice-president, as is Mikhail Friedman of Alfa Bank. Alexander Smolensky, however, has converted to Russian Orthodoxy, is a generous contributor to the Orthodox Church, and has requested that he not be listed in the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia. Mikhail Khodorkovsky shows considerable irritation whenever his Jewish origins are noted. Boris Berezovsky sought Israeli citizenship as protection during the initial period of his life as a tycoon, but subsequently renounced it when his loyalty to Russia was questioned. He now suggests that he has converted to Russian Orthodoxy, although he continues to regard himself as an ethnic Jew.

...
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp414.htm

[The Magistrate]

28. Do, By All Means, Sir, Defend Anti-Semitic Ravings

I could, in no more than a few minutes, compile a similar list to demonstrate that Bolshevism was a Jewish tyranny, or that Jewish bankers exploit the world, or that Jews control the media in the United States. And all these things remain grotesque exaggerations in the service of bigoted hate. Bigoted hate that, by linking to 'vineyard of the saker', and defending it, you are spreading and endorsing.

If you think the article you have linked to demonstrates that the anti-semitic ravings of the proprietor and regular contributors to 'vineyard of the saker' are expressions of accurate fact rather than of bigoted hate, there is probably no hope of salvaging you, though you might perhaps be put to some use as an example pour encourager les autres....

The proprietor is responsible for comments on his site, since he can delete them, and otherwise weed out what he would not be associated with. The comment cited summarizes accurately a video the proprietor posted and endorses. Comments of that sort flood the site, and are in agreement with the proprietor's expressed views.

[KoKo]

34. This is interesting background.....Enjoyed the read...

and have bookmarked to go to their perspective on how Putin became a leading figure in Russia. I don't get into the "Vineyard Saker" stuff. (not that there's anything wrong with reading the Blog) But, found this site's articles interesting for background from the other perspective. Connecting the Oligarchs of that time with today will be interesting. I've read about the Bankers who went into Russia after breakup of the Soviet Union and Wall Streeters who swooped in to take advantage and Larry Summers Role in "attempted the remaking the Russian Economy" which didn't work out well...so that's why another view should be an interesting read.

This article:

Jerusalem Letter / Viewpoints

No. 414 5 Tishrei 5760 / 15 September 1999


THE ROLE OF POLITICS IN
CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN ANTISEMITISM
Betsy Gidwitz

[jakeXT]

35. The privatization of the profit of a state enterprise.

The car dealerships were extremely profitable, in part, because of a process Berezovsky called the privatization of the profit of a state enterprise. Avtovaz produced Ladas at an average cost of about $4700 but sold them to autodealers at $3500 per car. The dealers then sold the cars for $7000 each. The underpricing of the cars by Avtovaz came as a result of the control of its management. Thus Berezovsky moved the potential profit of the state enterprise out of the enterprise and into the private enterprise of the dealerships. Since such a money-losing enterprise would not have much market value it would be cheap to buy ownership. This is the scenario proposed by Berezovsky.

In 1996 Berezovsky told Paul Klebnikov, the author of Godfather of the Kremlin,

Privatization in Russia goes through three stages. The first stage is the privatization of profits. The second is the privatization of property. The third is the privatization of debt.

He left out the essential zeroeth step: gaining control of management. It is this step which allows the privatization of the profits of an enterprise where, as in the case of Avtovaz, the profits can be transferred out of the enterprise by the under pricing of the product. The profits could just as well be transferred out of the enterprise by overpaying for supplies.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/oligarchs.htm

[KoKo]

36. Thanks...will check out that view..looks interesting for read. eom.

[KoKo]

39. Also interesting...thanks... n/t

[The Magistrate]

29. And, Of Course, His 'Truther' Links....

http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://www.911truth.org/questions/#more-11964

( this one goes whole-hog 'false-flag' style )


There are several more, but these suffice for the demonstration, that the proprietor of the 'vineyard of the saker' is not only a raving anti-semite, but a general all around nutter....

[jakeXT]

30. Didn't our own DU JackRiddler own or write for 911truth.org ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x145774

http://www.911truth.org/osamas/mckinney.html

[The Magistrate]

31. And Your Point Would Be, Sir?

The standing of 'truther' ravings here is that they are only within bounds in the Creative Speculation group, and off-topic anywhere else.

When an interest in that line is wedded to the sort of anti-semitic ravings featured and hosted on 'vineyard of the saker', the result is particularly toxic, and no more fit for citation here than V-Dare or StormFront.

[jakeXT]

32. 911truth.org was even in GD when the NYTimes reported on it

The New York Times reports on 911Truth.org !http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2644177

Journalists like Pepe Escobar in his articles posted on DU have cited Saker

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11335773

Show me the missile
Slowly, with no hype and no spin, the Russian military are starting to deliver the goods. Here, courtesy of the Vineyard of The Saker blog, is their key presentation so far. As The Saker put it, Russia had - and has - a "20/20 radar vision", or full spectrum surveillance, on everything going on in Ukraine. And so, arguably, does NATO. What the Russian Ministry of Defense is saying is as important as the clues it is laying out for experts to follow.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-230714.html

[The Magistrate]

33. I Am Familiar With 'Current News' Exceptions, Sir

They do not alter the general case.

Mr. Escobar has jumped the shark long ago, and his treating 'vineyard of the saker' as a serious source just one element demonstrating that is so.

[KoKo]

37. Pepe Escobar does go OTT...but Humor is his stock in seeing the Absurdity

Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 08:02 PM - Edit history (1)

of Foreign Policy.

And whatever "Vineyard Guy" is saying .....I see his posts linked on Lib Websites. The Struggling Few that are these days... (given how the Left has been ground down by Democratic Rightward Drift Policies these days) But, always like to see "outrageous" and the "counter" because that makes for great discussion and folks delving into the "dark corners" which we all know are there that need to see the shine of the light for exposure.

No matter which side it is. Without diverse opinions we wouldn't have progressed as a society...as much as it causes chaos before consensus takes hold and then we are back again...repeating it all over....as civilization progresses.

We shouldn't be afraid of Differing Opinions...but should Embrace it. The only downside is that "Too Many Diverse Views" amongst the population makes Fascism impossible to achieve...or they achieve it with difficulty. The worry is what happens when there is a consensus.....by the Oligarchs and the Military/Industrial/Media/Complex........

That's the worry....

[KoKo]

38. My DU Memory is that it was Paul Thompson who was the TIMELINE for 9/11..

He was a Powerhouse with his Links and his efforts here on DU compiling News Reports from many sources.

-------

The Terror Timeline--Paul Thompson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11 — and America's Response is described by its publisher as a compilation of over 5,000 reports and articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1]

The book was compiled by a Stanford University alumnus and 9/11 researcher Paul Thompson, and by other contributors to the History Commons website (formerly operated by the Center for Cooperative Research). The timeline chronicles events leading up to the terrorist attacks and America's response. The timeline was first published in mid-2002 under the web address www.complete911timeline.org, a host name that has since become obsolete. A timeline similar to Thompson's original timeline can be found at www.complete911timeline.com.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terror_Timeline

[KoKo]

40. The "PTB" did excellent job of getting focus off "9/11 Truth" and into the Weeds

with Building 7 Stuff. It was a great disinfo project...to get us off QUESTIONING the "9/11" report...redacted info...and the lack of follow up on the Saudi's.

Instead "real questions" were relegated to "Truther Sites" about the Pentagon Plane disappearing without bodies or plane damage and into the "heat temperature" that could be sustained before a building collapses...leading to "Controlled Demolition Theories" and then the counter reaction where NONE of this was TRUE.....

And so....we stopped investigating the original crime and where our Govt. was that day and where were the intercepts of communications and the rest and why was the Investigation so Hasty and with some still redacted and questions never answered leading to thriving business in "CT" that is half truth and obfuscation, distraction...devised by those who don't want any more investigation and by distracting and paying for sites that allow "sidetracking" the whole "9/11" has become "Conspiracy by Crazies and advocates of Web Sites that can be discounted and banned from site."

We don't know...will never know and it allows "CT" to make money...to shut off real investigation because one can be labeled Crazy for even asking "How and Why" because they want to tar the questioners as in the "Controlled Demo/Building 7 and No Evidence of Plane Crash at Pentagon Site or PA Site..Crowd."

I think the "Truth" lies inbetween and a New Investigation in the future should be convened. LOL's of that EVER Happening..

But...the vitriol against Truther's leads to Everything about "9/11" being LABELED as "Conspiracy Theory" and that works well for the PTB.

We will probably never know....given past history.