Bill Weinberg supports the onset of World War IV

-from Revisions (work in progress)

Bill Weinberg supports the onset of World War IV

By Edward Herman

Znet, Tuesday, July 19, 2005

[Note: Weinberg put a very similar version of this critique on his World War 4 web site, which I answered with the reply I reproduce here with only minor bracketed changes that reflect his occasional shifts. But as I noted in my initial reply, I don't have time to do justice to all of Weinberg's distortions, as there isn't a single paragraph, and very few sentences, that are not vulnerable to disassembly for ignorance and misrepresentation, false "implications," and attack by snide put-downs.]

This is a standard rightwing smear tactic whereby somebody who, for example, criticizes the Bush attack on Iraq "supports Saddam Hussein" or who opposes the Patriot Act is a "supporter of terrorism."

This is war-supportive crap that Weinberg buys and helps disseminate.

In proving me an apologist, one technique Weinberg uses is the false inference. But I say explicitly that "political interest hardly proves that the establishment narrative is wrong. It does, however, suggest the need for caution..." This kind of lying is important for Weinberg, because a main feature of his article is its complete lack of caution and his touching assumption that all those folks who have a political interest in the standard narrative are unbiased and simply truth-seekers. Throughout, he talks about an "international investigation" studying this subject as if the parties doing that investigating have no political axe to grind.

He says I "implicitly (not explicitly, which would require more courage) argue that these were black propaganda jobs." Weinberg lies once more: I say clearly that the conclusion that these were black propaganda jobs is "based on serious and substantial evidence," and I cite powerful sources for this conclusion: two articles by NYT reporter David Binder, the study by on-the-scene U.S. army officer John Sray, a major Senate Staff Report of 1997, and more. But Weinberg doesn't mention or discuss these: he knows that the establishment party line is true and it is easier to rely on misrepresentation and evasion . [Note: in this version of his reply Weinberg does mention the Senate Report, but instead of dealing with its substance he uses the diversionary tactic of sneering at my reference to such an official document: "so heart warming to see leftists making common cause with their enemies": so, use establishment sources and we get smart alec sneers; use dissident sources and they are unreliable.]

This is only "implicit ." No one did: certainly not me. That Weinberg suggests otherwise shows Weinberg's fundamental dishonesty.

[Note: the gem that follows is in Weinberg's original, dropped in this revised version.] It must also be a struggle for Weinberg to deal with the Bush administration's steady lying, which we must assume represents a sharp departure from the Clinton gang's honesty in the pursuit of evil.

The final coerced, Stalinist effort, Weinberg takes as authentic.

I'm not sure what my "primary" argument is for Weinberg, but he has missed it (I urge readers to look at the original, cited earlier, unrecognizable from Weinberg's stupid misrepresentations and suppressions).

[Recall the meticulous Weinberg's concern over using "dubious touchstones of veracity."]