Joseph Cannon published a previously censored piece on Putin's dark rise to power on his blog today.

[lapucelle]

Conde Nast censored the story in order to protect its Russian business interests. The story concerns the bombing that rogue former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko was investigating when he was poisoned with radioactive polonium while living in London.

http://www.newser.com/story/68637/gq-buries-story-on-putins-dark-rise-to-power.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112530364

Joe Cannon is a left-leaning Democratic who reads and sometimes links (positively) to DU, but he is a conspiracy theorist, so caveat lector. Here's a link to the cannonfire blog:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.ca/

[KittyWampus]

1. Usually steer clear of conspiracy theories... but these days it seems we are witnessing one

unfolding before us on the world stage.

[lapucelle]

2. Hence the warning,

but the story was originally published in 2009 in a mainstream magazine and then it was conveniently "disappeared".

[GeorgeGist]

3. You do a disservice to the article's author ...

Scott Anderson by linking him to CT.

[lapucelle]

5. The warning concerned The blog I linked to, not the author of the original article.

I'm not saying that there's anything at all dubious about Anderson. It's the blog where I read the censored story that sometimes deals in CT.

[ck4829]

4. Litvinenko's book on the subject is banned as "extremist material" in Russia

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/litvinenkos-russia-study-gets-extremist-ban-308313

Funny, you can say a meteor that caused mass injuries and damage was a US weapon and you can be a Chechen warlord and be an ally of Putin who rules in an area that just happens to vote 107% for him, but a book is extremism.

[JCannon]

6. Va, fille de dieu...

As a lifelong admirer of the sainted Jeanne (test me; I've read nearly every bio), I find it amusing to be mildly dissed by someone calling herself la pucelle.

But you should know that most "conspiracy theorists" absolutely despise me. The towering intellectuals over on Rigorous Intuition consider me the arch-enemy of their little exercises in paranoia. At least, they used to say things like that, back when they were more likely to talk about me.

Damnedest thing just happened: Shortly before reading this, I corresponded with a much better known blogger -- someone with a good rep, someone whom nobody considers a "conspiracy theorist." But behind the scenes, she is more paranoid than I am! And she was castigating me for being too conventional in my thinking.

This happens to all of us, doesn't it? On the same day when someone tells you "You go too far," someone else will say "You don't go far enough."

[lapucelle]

8. I'm a faithful reader Joseph, but I've had posts here removed for linking to you concerning

primary matters, so I'm always careful to warn the more sensitive souls that you don't pull punches when it comes to anyone, including my choice Hillary among others.

You do good work, and I trust your instincts. I also share your admiration for the exquisite and extraordinary Soubirous.

Désolée pour ne pas être aussi courageuse en mes sentiments que ni Jehanne ni Bernadette.

[Denzil_DC]

7. "he is a conspiracy theorist"

To put it mildly. He's had a few choice things to say about Obama in his time.

I had a few run-ins with Joe in my old PUMA-hunting days (he was never a PUMA as such, though he did hang out with - and eventually fall out with - people from the Confluence etc.).

I wouldn't deny that he tends left on many things.

Just wanting to reinforce your caveat.