Wingnuts and their strawmen

As I saw predicted in the comments at Shakespeare's Sister the other day, the wingnuts are trying to use crackpot conspiracy theories to discredit liberals with real issues like the Downing Street Memo.

Why they didn't invite former Department of Labor chief economist, Morgan Reynolds P.H.D, to explain what really happened on 9/11 is mystifying. The true believers (or more accurately "non-believers") were already in attendance. Think of the fun they could have had...

Conveniently, he doesn't document a single source that equates the two issues or even mentions both. But if they can paint everyone behind pushing the Downing Street Memo story as also supporters of these ridiculous conspiracy theories about September 11th, then it makes the DSM story look more like something from the extreme. That's the way they work over there, try to discredit the other side rather than have anything of value to offer yourself. Also just make stuff up in order to support their positions.

Anyway, let me state my position clearly. The Downing Street Memo is real news. It is independent evidence of things that were already pretty clear. I don't think it's necessarily a smoking gun, but I think it (along with other things we've heard about the time leading up to the war in Iraq) definitely warrants an investigation. I think it's pretty obvious that the President lied, and I htink the only reason that the other side doesn't care about this memo is because they also don't care that he lied, because they think he knows better than they do what is good for the country. And I also think that if people think that any planes didn't crash into the Pentagon and/or (and especially) the World Trade Center, then they've probably been smoking a little (actually a lot) too much of something or other.