I thank Robert Baer for his review of my book, The New Pearl Harbor
["Dangerous Liaisons," Sept. 27], in which he, perhaps using methods
learned in the CIA, cleverly supports the book's argument while
appearing to dismiss it. First, he begins by declaring, "Conspiracy
theories are hard to kill." He thereby pretends not to know that in
the book's introduction, I pointed out that the question is not
whether one accepts or rejects a conspiracy theory about 9/11 but
only whether one accepts the government's conspiracy theory or some
other one. By pretending not to know this, Baer suggests that to take
issue with the book one needs only to put it in the "conspiracy
theory" genre, thereby dismissing it a priori.

Second, he warns readers not to be fooled into thinking the book is
"a search for truth," because my "mind is all but made up." By
pretending to equate my state of mind before I began my research with
my state of mind after I finished it, he appears to warn readers that
I arrived at my views before examining the evidence. However, since
he must know otherwise (assuming he read the introduction), he has
simply helped the reader notice that it is his own approach that he
has described. For he then says, "Griffin simply cannot accept that
our national security system totally failed all on its own on
September 11." So, although my book revolves around the choice
between these two theories--official complicity or massive official
incompetence--Baer announces that the latter is the truth, saying
that the attacks succeeded because of "a confluence of incompetence,
spurious assumptions and self-delusion on a grand scale," thereby
suggesting that my book can be dismissed not by refuting its evidence
but by dogmatically accepting the incompetence theory.

Third, Baer says that the incompetence theory is really implausible.
After pointing to the failure of NORAD to protect us on 9/11, he
asks: "Can it really be that incompetent?" He also shows that the
claims of the FBI and CIA to have been "surprised by 9/11" are
implausible.

Fourth, Baer uses strong words to denounce the book's ideas, calling
them "wacky," "monstrous," and referring to one of my sources as a
"crackpot author." This resort to name-calling is Baer's clearest
signal that in his view the book's evidence cannot be challenged on
its own terms.