More on Bush's interpreter, the bulge, 9/11, and conspiracy

Remember the interpreter? Fred Burks? The one who offered testimony buttressing the argument that Bush uses an earpiece?

You may want to read what Daniel Hopsicker has to say about him.

But before you peruse Hopsicker, let me offer a few words of caution.

Hopsicker, as most of you know, has been investigating the Florida connections to the 9/11 disaster. Along the way, he has uncovered many surprising data nuggets surrounding the activities of Mohammed Atta.

This work made Hopsicker a big player within the community of individuals who insist that we have not yet heard the full story about the World Trade Center attacks. That community is growing -- and growing nasty.

If you followed JFK assassination research, you know that people attracted to that field often became prickly and surly as the years passed. Unable to change the history books, the conspiracy investigators took their frustrations out on each other. They turned their community into a stormy realm where everyone hated everyone else -- a realm where people screamed "spook!" at each other as a way of punishing perceived rivals and enforcing conformity of thought.

This sort of behavior makes a terrible impression on outsiders, of course.

And that behavior now characterizes the 9/11 researchers. If you look at some of their recent literature, you'll see that, deep down, they're no longer very upset by the unpleasantness in New York. What really gets 'em fuming are fellow researchers who proffer scenarios at a variance with their own favored theories.

Those theories now come in a bewildering variety of flavors. There are people who think a missile hit the Pentagon. People who think the jets that hit the WTC fired missiles. People who think the twin towers had explosives planted inside.

And then there are those (including yours truly) who scoff at all such notions, but nevertheless suspect we have not yet been told anywhere near the whole story about Atta, Osama, and a host of other key players.

Since 9/11 theorists now routinely toss the "spook" label at anyone who does not happen to inhabit their own narrow strip of conspiracy acres, the preceding paragraph has probably made me a potential target.

Now, I told you all of that to set the stage for Hopsicker's snipings at Fred Burks.

I did not know until recently that Burks had established his own perch among the 9/11 theorists. You can find his web site on the subject here.

Here's where things get sticky: Fred has been associated with Michael Ruppert, another 9/11 iconoclast. Hopsicker does not agree with Ruppert. (Neither do I.) Hosicker tends to spook-bait Ruppert, who is perhaps the biggest of the big wheels within that fractious community. And since Burks is friendly with Ruppert, then Burks himself must also be a secret hireling of The Enemy -- or so implies Hopsicker:

...we wondered: who the f- is Fred?

And we were, of course, shocked -- shocked! -- when we discovered that Fred -- and this is a coincidence! -- used to work for, and sometimes still does, President George W. Bush, who was the beneficiary of a campaign by Fred to get people to pray for him.

We thought: isn't that precious. Then we read this quote from Fred: "I'll be sitting in a room with President Bush and President Megawati of Indonesia helping them to communicate with each other by interpreting. Several other top government leaders from the US and Indonesia will be present. What I like to do in these meetings whenever I'm not interpreting is to channel divine love to everyone present."

Now we thought: isn't that creepy.

Creepy? Not really. Kinda silly, kinda new-agey, yeah. But I've seen every damn movie David Lynch ever made, and I know creepy when I see it. It takes a lot more than Fred Burks' evocation of "divine love" to creep me out. Especially if the only proof that Fred Burks "works" for W comes down to that interpreting gig.

So why have I told you folks this long shaggy-dog story? A few reasons:

1. Readers deserve to know a bit more about Burks, since his name gets mentioned in a number of promptergate articles. Right now, I see no pressing reason to place much stock in Hopsicker's fears.

2. After the election, I may write further on the alternate theories of 9/11 -- although I hesitate to do so. That terrain has become a swamp.

3. The Hopsicker/Burks spat demonstrates the dangers of the conspiracy-spotter's mind-set. Hopsicker is a smart guy who has done valuable work. Alas, the earwig of paranoia has burrowed into the cerebellum of many a good man.

So far, the promptergate bloggers are a jolly, cooperative bunch. Let's make sure that our small community avoids the ugly divisiveness that has assailed others.