I believe that "Norman Mailer" is actually Osama bin Laden's nom de plume.

I can't prove it, of course, but no-one's ever seen them in the same room at the same time. Suspicious, no?

Also, his father was probably Hitler.

I'm beginning to become increasingly distresed to be linked by the Huffington Compost, which seems to be nothing but vapid posts about nothing at all or else batshit-crazy screeds by certifiable lunatics

Yeah, I totally agree. I especially that vomit posted by ass-hats like John Fund, James Pinkerton, and Eugene Volokh.

Tinfoil hats ahoy!

At the age of eighty-two I do not wish to revive old paranoia, but Lenin did leave us one valuable notion, one, at any rate.

Now, why do I find it hard to believe that Norman Mailer only finds one of Lenin's notions valuable?

Can Mailer even suggest a motive why exactly we'd want to instigate riots against us in a foreign country?

When you cannot understand a curious matter, ask yourself, "Whom? Whom does this benefit?"

Ah, the question that launched a thousand conspiracy theories.

Surprised that a genius like Mailer finds this matter so curious that he cannot understand it. Really? You can't understand that rushing to run stories from unreliable anonymous sources can be a recipe for disaster?

That IS curious.

Perhaps he should ask "Who? Whom does this benefit?" of Newsweek's original sham article, too.

Who did that benefit?

It benefited Muslim extremists. It benefited Al Qaeda. It benefited the media's owned-and-operated political wing, the Democratic Party.

Why does his "Who? Whom does this benefit?" question only get asked about some subjects and not others?

The right has been pretty careful not to claim (outright, at least not seriously) that Al-Newsweek really intended to harm American security interests.

But if we're in the "whom does this benefit?" conspiracy-theorizing mode, well, I guess it's a fair question, ay?

It all makes perfect sense to me. Bush, in order to ensure his re-election and get his hands on some oil, stages the WTC terrorist attack. When the rioters, who it just so happens are actually undercover U.S. special forces, in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world, need provocation for killing more of the oil holding Middle Eastern population, the Republicans figure out a way to start riots and kill more Muslims, all the while blaming it on the left. How can anything this blindingly obvious be called a conspiracy? Oooooo! Wait! I'll. Bet. The. Terrorists. Are. Really. U.S. Special Forces too!!! They kill just enough of our own guys to make it look like they're not! Oh yeah!! Damned skippy!!

It's so brilliant that I'd bet I could have come up with it even if I weren't higher than a satellite!

btw, did you forget to tip vonkreedon at the coffee shop this morning?
he's real bitchy today

There still resides, however, under my aging novelist's pate a volunteer intelligence agent, sadly manque.

Wow, "pate" and "manque" in one sentence. I guess I have no choice to believe everything this person says, since they're clearly a super-genius.

Sooo... response to baseless, unprovable allegations that provoke deadly riots: baseless, unprovable allegations that the whole thing is a set-up. Nice.

If you knew anything about our history - you would know that all of the riots in Iran that toppled Mossadegh in 1953 were bought and paid for by the CIA. Its not beyond the realm of possibility.

Moonbat_One:

Here's an answer - the riots will lead to fear, fear will lead to anger, which will lead to hate which will lead to another

Halliburton War for Blood 'n' Oil! Yeearrgh!!

That's my take. Your mileage may very.

I worked in an Internet directory with a bunch of liberal intellectual left leaners and everytime we had corruption at any level it always came with a story of how it wasn't what it seemed and must be exactly opposite caused by those doing the catching of the corruption, after all, how did they find out about it? Thus if you found it and reported it, you must have planted it in order to serve some higher cause or purpose, or simply you must be corrupt yourself. So hence your finding corruption meant you were corrupt. Luckily there were enough of us normal folk at the time to point out that they sure seemed to have an abnormally large amount of black helicopters circling them at any given time. But it gets old when everything they see and read has deep hidden meaning and is always a part of a secret plot aimed at them and those around them by one of ...gasp... --us--.

"Whom? Whom does this benefit?"

Hey, Isikoff is a secret convert to Islam who's manipulating the media from the inside!

Personally, I blame all the spy/espionage thrillers of the last twenty years or so. 'Cause all these batshit crazy theories are basically the plot of Long Kiss Goodnight with less Samuel L. Jackson and Geena Davis.

Lenin's question was actually "Who, whom?" (as in, "Who will defeat whom?") -- so Mailer is full of it even on that count.

In The Naked and the Dead there is a wonderful scene in which Mailer is drunk. The immediacy and the feel show that it was obviously written by someone who really was drunk at the time. He describes it as being under water, feeling the eddies currents move this way and that, feeling numb and apart from everything.

Apparently he hasn't left that place and at 82 is still quoting Lenin666. What a horses ass!

In the intro to The Armies of the Night Mailer proudly quotes the NYT about his performance at a rally:

"He stumbled up to the stage and clambered aboard, never letting go of his coffe cup full of scotch. 'I don't want to granstand,' he said grandly but hardly standing, but blah, blah, blah ... "

The last time I heard from Mailer was on an interview with Sean Hannity this year. He was obviously drunk again and Hannity cut him to ribbons. As he once said of his own schtick: "It is not given to the hipster to age gracefully." For once, he has proven himself to be right about something.

Omigod!

Cedarford is NORMAN MAILER!!!!

Who knew?

ok -- lemme get this straight:

there really *are* no Islamonutters - in fact no Muslims at all. All of those AK-waving, dancing-in-the-streets, screeching, flag-burning maniacs are actually CIA/ETC operatives, even the ones in Gitmo. On *both* sides of the bars. This is all an elaborately staged ruse to manipulate the American Consumer into .... whaaa?

my. head. hurts.

> If you want to discredit a Dan Rather or a Newsweek crew, just feed them false information from a hitherto reliable source

Umm, first off, Bill Burkett was a hitherto reliable source?

Second, "hitherto reliable"... Does this mean that perhaps the media might simply protect itself by ... GASP!!! ... verifying its stories more carefully!?!

Whodathunkit! A defense against those meretricious jesus freaks is... (again)GASP!!!... being CAREFUL about **checking FACTS**?

DAMN THEM! DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!!!

Oh, the humanity!!!

How can we expect modern journalists to actually CHECK FACTS!?!?

Where will the best stories come from? The finest innuendoes and slanders? The sweetest prevarications of half truths and sublimely perverted distortions!?!?

Those poor journalists could be limited to... reporting THE TRUTH?

SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE!?