I always run the guardian through pornalize whenever I visit, its the only way to make the content decent. The embassy closures set off a wave of conspiracy theories. If the state had simply raised the terror level, skepticism would be understandable but they have closed over thirty embassies, no state would go to such trouble to win extra approval rating points. I'm sure the guardian's writers would love to imagine that Obama sits around all day throwing darts at their photos but the reality is that the president would not go to such measures just to spite them.
The guardian published an article by one Lance deHaven-Smith the advancing narcissistic fantasy that the president acted solely to spite the guardian. Smith is a Florida 911 conspiracist who said that 911 "was an inside job to advance a war agenda" he thinks that "the collapse of New York’s twin towers resulted from controlled demolition." The jokes write themselves: Florida man pretending to be patriotic lies about the deaths of nearly 3,000 fellow citizens to promote pathetic career.
Smith also promotes conspiracy theories about JFK and pearl harbor.. He wrote that FDR "maneuvered Japan to attack U.S. forces in the Pacific, and knew when and where Japan was going to strike but intentionally failed to warn U.S. military commanders at Pearl Harbor." Such claims are not only false, they're central in revisionist attempts to paint the axis powers in a favorable light. Remember when academia had some standards? I do not.
The article does have any evidence at all it boils to Lance arguing that his claim about the embassy closures are correct because the Ameican government has lied in the past. According to Smith the closures are perfect timing because of "opposition to the NSA." Its hard to see anyway that the alert could justify domestic metadata collection, since the intelligence was obtained from purely foreign SIGINT.
According to Smith the "recent travel alert and mission closures warrant suspicion because of the US government's history of using terror alerts to manipulate public opinion." Fumbling for evidence Lance cites how "Bush's popularity spiked upward whenever the terrorist threat level was raised from yellow to orange." He doesn't cite a single example remotely comparable to the closures which as far as I know is an unprecedented action. Real or imagined Bush manipulation of terror alerts do not prove that embassy closures are ploys to raise Obama's popularity, Smith has only proved that he has no grasp of elementary logic.
Lance continues by whining that "these speculations as "conspiracy theories". In the United States, this retort is sufficient to silence stories in the mainstream media unless the accusations are supported by smoking-gun evidence of elite political intrigue." Smith is very hostile to the standard that fantastic claims without evidence must be dismissed. Lance wants things to be fair and that requires suspending evidence based reasoning which is the only way how someone could take his article seriously.
According to Lance "there are examples could be cited" and none of them would prove conspiracy theories about the terror alert and embassy closures. He thinks that "dismissing doubts about possible intrigue on the grounds that they are "conspiracy theories" stymies debate when it is most needed" that which is presented without evidence like Smith's article must be dismissed. Theories without supporting facts and evidence only degrades debate and provides a forum to charlatans like Lance. The guardian continues to publish material in support of depravity and imbecility whether brazen support for dictators or obvious kooks.