Noted feminist links Reichstag fire, 9/11

Have you seen feminist writer Naomi Wolf's piece on how to rip off democracy in 10 easy steps?

Wolf, a onetime aide to Bill Clinton's campaign, might have been writing for the Sons of Liberty or the Minutemen of King George's era. The Guardian first published her piece on April 24 and the Huffington Post blog reprinted it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064517,00.html.

As she points out, the Bush administration has taken every one of the steps that history shows constitute the prescription for tyranny.

Interestingly, Wolf draws a parallel between the Reichstag fire, which was an inside job "terrorist attack" used to implement Nazi controls, and the attacks of 9/11.

Wolf, who grew up in a liberal Jewish household, had a mystical experience with Jesus several years ago, but says that that experience only reinforced her commitment to the cause of women.

Edwards goes blank on WTC7
Tucson 9/11 Truth posted a video showing an exchange between a 9/11 truther and presidential candidate John Edwards. See it at 9/11blogger or Youtube.

Edwards didn't have a clue what "World Trade Center 7" meant until someone explained that it was the third trade center building that collapsed on 9/11.

The questioner is to be commended for bringing up the issue of WTC7 and noting that nothing much has been done on the matter. But, a somewhat uncomfortable Edwards could only say that his staff would get back to the questioner with an answer.

The problem was that the question was not precise enough and left plenty of waffle room, though it did bring out that a man who would be president is alarmingly ignorant of the basics of 9/11 and the big holes in the government story.

Had Tucson's 9/11 Truth Squad drafted two or three specific questions in advance, the result might have been less nebulous and more interesting. Even so, the confrontation is important and likely to have big consequences in the presidential maneuvering.

Though I generally -- but not invariably -- disdain media polls, I suppose we might mention that a recent poll shows that more than one in three Democrats was willing to say out loud that it appeared that 9/11 was an inside job. Hence, feigning ignorance or being ignorant on this subject seems like a bad move for a Democratic candidate during the primary phase, when wedge issues can make the difference.

Even GOP candidates must beware. Because later, Democrats will be voting in the "poll that counts" and rash rebuffs of 9/11 truth concerns might easily be played back during the general campaign.

Try something like this
There are numerous sharp questions that might be asked about specifics.

But here's a general question that forces a candidate to reveal his or her position and which may help stimulate debate:

Question: How would you rate the chance that 9/11 was an inside job? Zero-to-low, fair, or strong chance?

And, if needed, here's a follow-up:
Question: You say the chance was low, but how would you rate the chance that there is still a major cover-up of odd things that might be creating the impression of an inside job? For example, John Kerry has said World Trade Center 7 was demolished in a controlled fashion for safety reasons. But the official denial or silence on this point might be fueling speculation.